Whatever happened between “Me” and “You”?
It was easy to understand our relationship in the beginning. It was what I like to think of as “a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love” - a "Me Tarzan, you Jane" kind of thing.
Me: (pointing to herself) Consumer.
You: (he points at her) Consumer.
Me: And you? (she points at him) You?
You: (stabbing himself proudly in the chest) Producer, Producer.
Me: (emphasizing his correct response) Producer.
You: (poking back and forth each time) Consumer. Producer. Consumer. Producer...
With apologies to Tarzan, the Ape Man (1932)
I gave you money for the goods and services you produced - “Me Consumer, you Producer.”
We still have “a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love” but now instead of Me: (pointing to herself) Consumer….You: (stabbing himself proudly in the chest) Producer, Producer… there is a Me (producer) You (consumer) kind of thing going on.
Web 2.0 means I produce my own content and you, well you (and the other wannabe manipulators of the cloud) become the consumer. You don’t care about the quality or integrity of what I produce it is enough that I broadcast content, for by taking control of the distribution channels, and using the information I produce, you profit. You are Google, Apple, Amazon … and the rest.
It is a simple relationship where you leverage off my activity. And the more I/me can produce the more profit you generate – so you work hard to make production easy and attractive for me and the students I teach.
"The more links we click, pages we view, and transactions we make, the more intelligence the Web makes, the more economic value it gains, and the more profit it throws off." Carr 2008 cited in Lovink 2010.
In the educational world I inhabit the “me” do not question your generosity, we do not pause to ask why you shower us with so many applications and services. We love you big time – we love your work – we love what you do. In the guise of e-learning we not only use your production tools, feed your clouds, and encourage our students to do likewise, we also worship what you provide.
Watching the activities of edu-bloggers and self proclaimed elearning experts online it is a little like watching the ouroboros consuming its own tail. In a strange act of self-worship we use your production tools to worship your production tools. In a testimony of our faith in you we create edu_blog posts on “Ten best XXX apps for educators”, we enshrine your apps in purpose built displays and descriptions in edu_wikis, and we upload video to explain how to use your apps and production tools.
In the educational world we are your fevered but reverent producers. You, well you must know where you stand in this relationship.
Web 2.0 has three distinguishing features: it is easy to use; it facilitates the social element; and users can upload their own content in whatever form, be it pictures, videos or text. It is all about providing users with free publishing and production platforms. The focus on how to make a profit from free user−generated content came in response to the dotcom crash. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0
Web 2.0 has changed more than our me you relationship – Web 2.0 has changed me. I am no longer the same me – I am no longer a privileged node in a network – I am no longer in charge – my me is blurred – With Web 2.0 I am a me that is part of a centralised infrastructure that is you – and you identify me and profit from, every click I/me make –
With Web 2.0 I am a “controlled and manipulated” me.
With Web 2.0 I am a “commodified” me.
Being commodified is
an odd sensation – it makes me wonder about the temporal me.
Am I more me at some
times than others? And if so when am I most me?
This feels like a vampiric question or even a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde thing.
With Web 2.0 it seems I am me in the present more than I am me in the past. The information I am encouraged to produce focuses on knowing me in real time not me in any past time.
You - the controller of the centralised infrastructure – the clouds and the data streams – have an insatiable appetite for “the real-time data” me. And this valuing of the real time data me privileges the present.
The pacemaker of the real−time
Internet is "microblogging", but we can also think of the social
networking sites and their urge to pull as many real−time data out of its users
as possible: "What are you doing?" Give us your self−shot.
"What's on your mind?" Expose your impulses. Frantically updated
blogs are part of this inclination, as are frequently updated news sites. The
driving technology behind this is the constant evolution of RSS feeds, which
makes it possible to get instant updates of what's happening elsewhere on the
web. The proliferation of mobile phones plays a significant background role in
"mobilizing" your computer, social network, video and photo camera,
audio devices, and eventually also your TV. The miniaturization of hardware
combined with wireless connectivity makes it possible for technology to become
an invisible part of everyday life. Web 2.0 applications respond to this trend
and attempt to extract value out of every situation we find ourselves in. The Machine constantly wants to know what we
think, what choices we make, where we go, who we talk to. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net
The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0 2010 http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-03-18-lovink-en.html
Asking “when am I me?” makes me realise that as a real-time me, I am an uncomplicated me, a me trapped in the present. This me is a product of a Simon Schama like “machine driven universe”. You know me by my most recent keyboard interactions with the screen
"For if the entire history of landscape in the West is indeed just a mindless race toward a machine-driven universe, uncomplicated by myth, metaphor, and allegory, where measurement, not memory, is the absolute arbiter of value, where our ingenuity is our tragedy, then we are indeed trapped in the engine of our self-destruction." Simon Schama Landscape and Memory Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1995 http://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Memory-Simon-Schama/dp/0679735127
Who is the real-time me?
The real-time me is the real “real-time me”. There is no place anymore for an alternative me; no space for the virtual “real-time me”. The “controllers of the cloud”, the “new overlords of the distribution channels”, want the real “real time me”. They have no time for an alternative me – the Artichoke me, they want only the real me. The new relationship between me and you values the old order, the existing power hierarchies’ of gender, race and position.
We constantly login, create profiles in order to present our "selves" on the global market place of employment, friendship and love. We can have multiple passions but only one certified ID. Trust is the oil of global capitalism and the security state, required by both sides in any transaction or exchange. In every rite de passage, the authorities must trust us before they let both our bodies and information through. The old idea that the virtual is there to liberate you from your old self has collapsed. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0 2010
And when I give you information about the real time me I give you control and power. I give you an enduring digital memory of me that acts as both a spatial and temporal panopticon.
If Orwell was right, and … “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Then by becoming a producer in your Web2.0 world I have given you control over my past, my present and my future.
And I am so excited by the ability to upload my own content and report on whatever I am thinking or doing in a real time stream of content that I neglect to interrogate the consequences. What does it mean when I give up control and power, when I become part of someone else’s content stream, when I offer all that I do and think as an enduring digital memory? What does it mean when I encourage my students to act in the same way?
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger has explored some potential responses to the challenges of this new relationship, the challenges of an enduring digital memory in “Delete. The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age”.
The first four chapters of”Delete” book focus on the consequences of failing to forget. They are well argued and although this is a topical issue for many Web 2.0 commentators Mayer-Schönberger introduced insights, ideas and content that were new to me. His thinking around the role of remembering provided a far deeper analysis and critique of the topic than Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell managed to collect in their book “Total Recall – How the e-memory revolution will change everything.” Bell and Gemmell offer valorising description; in contrast Mayer-Schönberger offers critical analysis of the causes and consequence of remembering everything. How remembering everything overload me with information, information that impairs my ability to reason, information I would be better off forgetting.
Delete is by far the more interesting read.
The last two chapters of “Delete” – Chapter V “Potential responses”, and Chapter VI “Re-introducing Forgetting” best captured my attention.
Mayer-Schönberger has a useful categorisation of responses to living with an enduring digital memory. So useful in fact that I spent a happy hour creating a CMap that used his classification to explore these in the context creating enduring digital memories through student eportfolios – an enduring affection of educators and one that I have been hearing about at edu_conferences since 2002. I could equally have explored the huge amount of data schools collect on their students and their families.
Mayer-Schönberger clarifies that when we increase the amount of information about ourselves and our students in digital memory we risk:
1. Loss of control and power over the information we place online.
2. Exposing student information and data in a digital panopticon (both spatial and temporal) where selective pieces of their information and data are under surveillance to people, and for purposes and times we have little to no control over.
3. Overloading with information we are better off forgetting, information that impairs reasoning.
What I enjoyed most was his interrogation of seven suggested responses to the challenges arising from the creation of enduring digital content. My notes describing each of the categories are included below – you will have to read the chapters to fully appreciate the critique.
Responding to the
challenges of an enduring digital memory
Three of Mayer- Schönberger’s responses are based around the individual and relationships. He explores ways in which the individual can decrease the flow of information between one person and another – between me and you. And critiques the potential success of each.
Responses framed
around
1. Social Norms and
Individual Self Control
Firstly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of social norms and individual self control. Personal behavioural change – Mayer- Schönberger refers to this as digital abstinence. So once educators and students appreciate “the implications of abandoning forgetting when digitising information we will stop providing information to others and digital memory of these outcomes will cease to exist.
2. Formal Laws
Secondly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of formal laws. These information privacy rights would afford students “with a legally recognised claim over their personal information, thereby empowering them to maintain information control on whether and how the information is shared.” This would include a Purpose Limitation Principle whereby “the recipient of the personal information can only use it for the purposes to which you consented and no others”.
3. Architecture
Thirdly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of architecture – through a Digital Privacy Rights Infrastructure. Mayer-Schönberger argues that a Digital Rights Management (DRM) infrastructure similar to that developed for information in the context of copyright (movies, music, games, digital books) is used in the context of forgetting any personal information. Your personal data is paired with meta-information about who can use it and how. Media players check this meta information and refuse to play information content if usage is not appropriately authorised. Individuals could add meta data to their personal information detailing who can use it for what purpose and for what price.
Mayer-Schönberger notes this would require laws to prevent reverse engineering, requiring surveillance to protect us from surveillance – we create a panopticon to protect us from a panopticon.
The Cognition, Decision
Making and Time Responses:
Responses framed
around
1. Social Norms and
Individual Self Control
Here Mayer-Schönberger suggests reducing the amount of information in digital memory by mechanisms of social norms and individual self control. He suggests that Cognitive adjustment at the cultural level will let us disregard old facts and information. We will accept that people change and pay heed to only the recent online.
2. Formal Laws
The formal laws approach could be used to reduce the amount of information in digital memory if we introduce an Information Ecology that allows for deliberate regulatory constraint of “what information can be collected, stored and thus remembered by who and for how long. However, Mayer-Schönberger notes that recent trends have seen a loosening of existing constraints on information in digital memory rather than a tightening and increasing calls for transparency legislation to fight corruption both of which would compromise this response.
3. Technology
The technological response to limiting the amount of digital content online made me smile. It suggests a Gordon Bell like experience but with one notable difference the Gordon Bell like content collected is shared with everyone. So we limit the negatives of storing content online by increasing the amount of information in digital memory. This proposal identifies that it is not digital memory per se that is the problem – it is the selective nature of this digital memory that compromises us. “When everything is transparent surveillance loses its power.”
The Re-Introducing
Forgetting Response.
Mayer-Schönberger’s proposal for re-introducing forgetting
by “making forgetting just a tiny bit easier than remembering” is elegant –
both simple and powerful in its scope.
By prompting the user to set expiration dates each time they save and
upload information and information bits - content, detail, comments - to
digital memory they confront users with the problem. I enjoyed Mayer-Schönberger’s
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of re-introducing forgetting (for
example, it fails to address privacy concerns). When the control remains with
the producer of the content, and we shift the default back from retaining
information forever to forgetting it after different time periods we restore something
of what it is to live well with technology, we restore what it is to be human. We allow a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love to continue.
WOW, Artichoke you have definitely been thinking about this piece for a long time. The podcast link from Mayer-Schönberger about Delete has reawakened my interest in accountability in the use of elearning for education.
This article raises several areas for further discussion. I look forward to completing the document discussed a while back. More, More. Signed: from me, me.
Posted by: ulimasao | May 19, 2010 at 09:33 PM
Really? .... really?
This sort of commentary kind of leaves me feeling... disappointed. I try very hard to listen to the A.Keenes of this world, but I couldn't even get past the first 3 minutes of the Youtube video.. (I read every word of yours before and after that embedded video though, love the Tarzan analogy.. that was really going somewhere).
Ok, I respond badly to shallow fear raising talks that dwell on examples to make one oh-so-obvious point, especially when, in their lamenting and dramatic tones and pauses, they fail to acknowledge the even more obvious response, and so give themselves away as being rather shallow or even bias preachers.
# A wanna-be teacher, blocked by a uni admin because of a photo. Firstly, there are laws she could call on. At least there are in Australia. But more importantly, that photo probably saved her from a life of false consciousness, where she was entering a profession that would control and shape her hapless life from then on. Why would she want to work in a sector that thinks its ok to block someone for a photo like that? Oh.. yes.. she wants to help the kids. Puke! Get real. Thanks MySpace for saving her from that life of crap. So glad it remembered while she, powerless she, forgot.
# An academic, who published a paper where in it he disclosed having taken LSD. An immigration officer blocks his entry into the US. The response might be the same as above, but lets go a different direction. He's an academic. He lives an over privileged life that has a social contract - to think and to write and to publish on things that he thinks are important, in a way that is accessible and meaningful to as many people as possisble. He made a judgment to disclose the taking of LSD for a reason.. and a good reason too, I'd expect. He should stand by that. Thank the Internet for helping him stay the path. So glad it did while he, powerless he, was willing to sanitise himself for the sake of...
Now I haven't read what your recommending, nor did I stick around for the hour of paid Youtube time.. its only because you are recommending it that I'm even a bit interested.. but I can't see from the video's intro, or your notes on the book, that it is really digging much deeper than the obvious channels of fear, with unsophisticated suggestions for managing the risks.
I so want to find a compelling critique of this medium.. but all I see and hear is modern day "devil's music", the same message since 2004. I'd sooner find a compelling critique in Ancient Greek philosophy then these bored nay sayers.
Give me a reason to look further please. Or keep the Tarzan Jane thing going.. now that was interesting!
Posted by: leigh blackall | May 20, 2010 at 10:48 PM
I reckon Doug gets there better, and in only 5 minutes!
Posted by: leigh blackall | May 20, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Really? .... really? This sort of commentary kind of leaves me feeling... disappointed. I try very hard to listen to the A.Keenes of this world, but I couldn't even get past the first 3 minutes of the Youtube video..
Ahh Leigh it has been too long, I need to ask about Sunshine and Eve who must be about 3 months old – and I wonder what becoming a parent has changed in you, because it always seems to bring something that shifts things.
I am pleased to have disappointed you. But I am surprised to have disappointed you. I am pleased because I like it when this can be a place where people with differing points of view on contentious issues can talk to each other and secondly because if I only ever read and engage with people I agree with I will never risk being undermined and I will never learn.
But I do wish you had listened to Mayer-Schöenberger for longer than 3 minutes though – or else if his “lamenting and dramatic tones and pauses” – mannerisms - irritated you and you could not look past them then I wish you could read his complete argument in text form in Delete – because from what I know about you Leigh – this is a book that argues for the very things you argue for – and many of the things Illich argued for in terms of de-schooling.
It is far from shallow, it distances itself from fear mongering and in my opinion it is not anything like an Andrew Keen argument.
I am surprised to have disappointed you because Mayer-Schöenberger is arguing for something that you used to/ still do care about – he is arguing for individual rights - and he outlines his arguments without hysteria. He is ethical in his approach in that he consistently finds space to include the strengths and weaknesses of each position he explores. This is a well balanced and well argued position piece that explores the legal, social and cultural implications of never being allowed to forget.
The reason why you should read the book is because Mayer-Schöenberger cares about the rights of the individual when he explores “forgetting” in part by looking at individual autonomy - The right of an individual to be – to live without fear of institutional or societal surveillance, observation and judgment, to live without always self-censoring everything and anything we might imagine or think about online.
He is talking about empowering the individual and that is something that I know you care deeply about. The rights of the individual over the institution.
The two situations you use as a basis for your objections are are referred to in the introduction and are used as examples of instances where individuals wanted control over their own content in the present and from the past – the book is much bigger than these two examples which have already been widely interrogated – you will find the court ruling on the “# A wanna-be teacher, blocked by a uni admin because of a photo.” case on the web.
But I will answer your critique - “Firstly, there are laws she could call on. At least there are in Australia.” Having laws did not much help when she did call upon them, partly because the situation was bigger than the picture. But as Mayer-Schöenberger outlines it in Chapter 5 relying on information privacy rights – is in truth far more challenging than you make it seem with your “Firstly, there are laws she could call on.”
For an individual to call upon the law for help is difficult – it is difficult for an individual to identify the source of an information leak – when the burden of proof falls on the individual this is a difficult and expensive burden – and they need to be able to pursue both the “whether” and the “how” their information is used.
It is not only hard to prove in law - the odds are stacked against the individual wishing to complain just as the odds are stacked against the rape victim reporting a rape.
And whilst you may trust the current government in Australia to collect your information and make decisions about who gets to see and use it Leigh – you currently live in privileged position in a democratic state. At this moment in time there are many other internet users do not live in the same world as you do – who are not advantaged by a surveillance that collects and collects and does not forget.
And as Delete reveals in the Dutch Government example – democracies can change – and the people you have entrusted with your data may have quite different agendas. Cory Doctorow’s book Little Brother –
Posted by: Artichoke | May 21, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Seems there is a limit on how long a comment can be ... this is going to be mispositioned but here is the rest of it
Cory Doctorow’s book – Little Brother – Free Download - is a fictional account of the effects of data surveillance and change in rights after a terrorist attack in San Francisco – I find it very credible
Schoenberger-Meyer addresses six ways in which the individual might regain control over their own information explaining how easy or challenging the process of doing this might be. His last suggestion seems to me to be all about empowering of the individual in a way that is easy, inexpensive and a giving back of control and protection of your own information to the little guy - I would have imagined that you would applaud that. I find it hard to imagine you arguing that an individual should not be allowed control over their own information which you appear to be doing
Whilst you might count this as a lucky break it seems certain that the individual concerned did not. If the individual concerned regrets their inability to delete their own information then the regret is real. It is hard for me to be dismissive of this on the grounds that their regret is somehow misplaced, and that I can predict being able to work in a chosen career will lead to future unhappiness.
Schoenberger-Meyer also addresses the temporal issue of remembering – something you raise in reference to the academic and his writing from the past being used to judge his present – all that
“He's an academic. He lives an over privileged life that has a social contract - to think and to write and to publish on things that he thinks are important, in a way that is accessible and meaningful to as many people as possible. He made a judgment to disclose the taking of LSD for a reason.. and a good reason too, I'd expect. He should stand by that. Thank the Internet for helping him stay the path.”
You claim that we ought to be able to be judged by any or all our past thoughts and actions – that who we are and what we believe is somehow frozen in time the first time we express it – that we should not ever attempt to change our mind or perspective – all that “He should stand by that. Thank the Internet for helping him stay the path.”
I struggle with this Leigh – you sound so very right wing - almost fundamentalist in this - I cannot accept that we should rigidly stick or be stuck with the opinions and attitudes we hold during a life. People change – and the most interesting people I meet are those that are open to change – it is how we learn. So although there are undoubtedly some people and some governments that would like to retain the ability to judge a person on the basis of past actions, mistakes, beliefs and thoughts, I don’t.
I think a fresh start is important. I think forgiveness is important. I think forgetting is important.
When I write about a book I always worry that I misrepresent the author – is why I added the video – although I believe the book is the best way to understand the arguments.
This is a book that is worth reading Leigh – it is a “compelling critique of the medium” – this is “no bored naysayer” BUT you will have to read it to find out.
Posted by: Artichoke | May 21, 2010 at 06:29 PM
Thanks Ulimasao - I am also looking forward to what you might create - and you are right to identify that I have been thinking about how we should live with and without technology for a long time. I have been wanting to write about Delete for a long time also - just finding the time to relax and think online has been very challenging in the last 18 months.
What is happening in my thinking is a re-framing of what I do in the day job - I am becoming more of the opinion I shared with Tessa recently -
I am coming to the conclusion that the most important thing that an educator can achieve wrt e-learning is helping students learn to "live well" with technology.
Teaching students how to deal with enduring digital memory when they put digital information online is something that matters most.
The rest is mind candy, marketing and manipulation.
I look at the NZ National and Cluster Goals for milestone reporting in the ICTPD Clusters - all that
1. Implement the New Zealand Curriculum / Te Marautanga o Aotearoa through the use of e-learning;
2. Increase capability of teachers and principals to improve students’ learning and achievement through e-learning;
3. Strengthen professional learning communities and increased collaboration within and across schools;
4. Increase e-learning leadership and ICT strategic planning capability of principals and teachers;
5. Increase the school community’s understanding of the educational contribution of e-learning.
And it doesn't surprise me that learning how to live well with technology flies under the radar - it is not an explicit goal focus and we are so busy reporting against the goals that are explicit leadership, those increasingly temporary strategic plans and broadcasting everything we do that we neglect the thing that matters most - how to be kind and live well with others online and offline
Posted by: Artichoke | May 21, 2010 at 07:09 PM
Josh Waitzkin, subject of the book and movie Searching for Bobby Fisher, has some really interesting things to say about learning in the digital age. He specifically addresses multi-tasking in his blog. Check it out at http://theartoflearningproject.org/educate/2010/02/multitasking-virus-in-our-classrooms-part-ii/
Posted by: Alyssa Robbins | June 30, 2010 at 04:59 AM
Gardner has posted a story about two Greek artists and representation.
http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=1340
He was talking about engagement, but for me the post reminded me how
much we are in love with our own voice, our own images of curtains.
You make a similar point about us blogging about the blogging tools we
are using. Iterative loops of technological introspection, closed
circuits, closed circuit TV.
It makes me think about communities of people who did not want their
photographs taken because they believed it would take their life or
soul away. In some ways they are correct? That the image captured
becomes more real or more a true and factual record than the person
themselves. A person recently lost a case where a doctor had taken his
DNA and sold it. The court deemed that he did not own his own DNA.
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0601-JUNE_GENES_rev_
We are becoming tenants in our own lives. The ownership role is
increasingly for systemic players, be they patent, DNA, technology.
I understand both Artichoke's and leigh blackall's takes on
forgetting. I think both have been important and both are in flux.
If a person was pilloried in the stocks or bullied at school there was
a time limit to the experience, and perhaps a restricted sphere of
influence for the impacts, these experiences are more difficult to
grow away from now. How do you effect healing and forgiveness in a
context where an angry word or a wound may always be as vivid and as
damaging as the day it was initiated?
Governments and businesses have been required to keep records of their
decisions and practices.
With the fast flowing shift in editing and redesigning websites very
often it is very difficult to access a history of government policies
over years. eg. In SA I know there was a librarian who was making
library records or place holders for policies on mental health which
had been available online, but then which had been lost as governments
changed and the websites were replaced or updated.
I feel that individuals are becoming more rigorously documented in
each experience, act and thought and that corporate and government
entities are becoming more fluid and less accountable, less
transparent. Difficult to learn from policy errors which are not
accessible for critique and learning. Companies fold and merge and
shift their legal geographical context to avoid accountability. Big
money and power is transient and obfuscated.
Perhaps that is congruent with our global obsession with competitive
games of personal drama, gladiatorial TV and sport. And also of our
inability to find real useful discourse and purpose
ecological sense and sustainability, social justice, in our government
and corporate, systemic systems of negotiation and law.
Posted by: Lucychili | August 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM
this issue from 2008 feels relevant
http://lucychili.blogspot.com/2008/11/pwned-by-pipes.html
Posted by: Lucychili | August 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Thanks for this link Alyssa - and apologies for such a tardy response - I much enjoyed Josh Waitzkins's thinking about learning in adigital age - and the way he skirted around the red herring and re-directed his focus onto the deeper question - "engagement".
Engagement is a strong focus in the day job - John Biggs claims it requires teachers to look carefully at the intended learning outcome - "value the learning outcome" and to do this in a way that makes the intended learning outcome visible and achievable to student - explicit, proximal and hierarchical
Posted by: Artichoke | August 15, 2010 at 06:24 PM
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger has done a good job summarizing the issue of web-based information. One solution is to implement laws to protect privacy and information. The other is to educate people so everyone knows how to protect and use information. One item in the latter list read “full contextualization”. The suggestion means collecting and dispatching all information, making everything transparent to everyone. It is hoped that the negative effects of information can be balanced by the positive. I seriously doubt if this is possible at all. All the time, everywhere people are discontented because they want more transparency from governments, from high management, from enterprises, and the lists go on and on. Transparency, if at all possible, is not uniform or universal. George Orwell (Orwell, 1945) wrote, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” (Ch. 10). Is it feasible to post everything about celebrities or politicians on the web? Like Mayer-Schönberger explained, it would be detrimental for a celebrity if his / her story was dug up from decades ago. If complete transparency only applies to some, then it is not perfect contextualization. Unless my interpretation is wrong, this suggestion lacks logical efficacy. In this regard, it appears to be extremely important and urgent to educate everyone to safeguard any information delivered online, which may be retrievable in the most undesirable situations.
Reference:
Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. The complete works of George-Orwell: Retrieved from http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html
Thank you.
Posted by: Holly Chun | November 08, 2010 at 02:49 AM
This is so great! Im glad I've found this article. I got lots of infos and ideas.
Thanks for sharing it! And by the way I enjoy watching Tarzan the ape man..
Posted by: Fish Oil for Kids | November 12, 2010 at 02:39 PM
Nice post. Thank you
Mary
Posted by: children educational support Schnider | December 16, 2010 at 01:20 AM