Okay, my last couple of posts here have been a bit on the heavy side, both in terms of content and quantity, even by my standards. I see that I got some views, but no response, which probably means either it was too bulky to absorb, or it just wasn't interesting. So...I was considering writing today about one of my hobbies, destroying misologists (that is, those with a fear or hatred of reason). However, I fear that path would lead me into further heavy territory, what with the requisite bashing of those holding bizarre religious beliefs--Christians and the like (no, honestly, I don't begrudge anybody their religion, so long as they do not attempt to impose it upon anybody else). So, I've decided to shelve that one for the moment, and instead write about something I've been kicking around for a week or so. It would, to the casual observer, appear to be lighter in tone than my other recent entries, though I know it to be, in fact, at least as controversial as matters of religion...and if it's not, I'll make it that way! My topic today is video games.
That's right, at the risk of alienating many of my friends, I'm about to trash video games. I am admittedly not much of a gamer, and for good reason. There are a few (very few) games out there with considerable quality. These, sadly, are becoming increasingly rare. Most games now resemble the likes of God of War or Halo or Grand Theft Auto, impostors all, substituting body count and collateral damage for story and soul and hoping that nobody will notice, or will be too overstimulated by the explosions and gunfire to care. You know what I call that? I call it the T-Rex Effect, the tendency not to notice anything that doesn't display a lot of noise or movement. I know I complain a lot already about the low-brow nature of so many Americans, so I won't tread that way today. Suffice it to say, it's a lot of garbage and people need higher standards, even if it is just video games we're talking about. I know, they're meant to be an escape of sorts, and who am I to tell other people what form their escapism should take? Well, I'm Ryan, and I wouldn't be me if I didn't gripe about it!
Look, I've got my own guilty pleasures. One of the few games I play regularly is a wrestling game. Whatever. It isn't my principal form of video game entertainment. You know what my favorite game was way back when we had the original Nintendo system? The Legend of Zelda. Yeah, I was probably 7 or 8, playing a game that requires enough thought that it would be unbeatable for many adults today. And I beat the damn thing! Okay, yeah, it was kind of a group effort along with my mom and my brother. We still beat it! And that was my favorite game all the way up until we got a Nintendo 64, and I got my hands on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Best game ever, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Many prominent gaming magazines place it in their top spot, even though its technology is now somewhat outdated. I was as enthralled as I have ever been with a video game. It is remarkably broad and diverse in its scope. It contains so many elements sorely missing from nearly every other game or series. It's central characters have considerable history, based on a deep and thoroughly developed mythology, and even the secondary and peripheral characters are far from interchangeable warm (digital) bodies. The adventures are complex and fascinating, and require multiple abilities in order to navigate them successfully. The physical geography is frequently breathtaking, and even something as seemingly trivial as the music is right on the money, serving to perfectly capture the mood of each location (I particularly recall the haunting tone of the Forest Temple, so apropos considering the spirits found throughout the maze-like structure). I could go on, but you get the point; the game deserved every single off-the-charts score it received.
A few weeks ago, Audrey and I finally got a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which I am now firmly entrenched in. It is more challenging still, though this may partially be due to getting accustomed to an entirely new controller. Even so, it contains so many of the elements that made most of its predecessors in the series so great. Nearly all of the games in the Zelda series are massively popular (or were in their time, at least), and rightfully so. My fear is that they could eventually be eclipsed by the throbbing mass of mindless violence that makes up 95% of the video game market today...but my hope is that Zelda will continue to be a shining beacon, a pinnacle which all other games will forever aspire to reach, not only for the sake of video games, but what that would represent, a triumph of the mind.
Everything else aside, though, the games are just damn fun, while emphasizing the virtues of wisdom and courage over mere power and bloodthirst. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for in the real world, just as Link and Zelda do in Hyrule?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Curious Sort-of Agreement
It has come to my attention that a significant number of my blogs boil down to issues of the role of government in the lives of the American people. I try to make a point of being an informed person on American politics, as I wish to be able to defend any arguments I make either for or against any particular policy or individual. I pride myself in my ability to be objective, or at a minimum, to be able to identify my own biases. That is to say, for instance, that I prefer to get my news from MSNBC rather than Fox News, though I know that MSNBC is almost as favorable to the political left as Fox News is to the political right. The reason is because I also know that, unlike Fox News, MSNBC doesn't just make shit up. Of course, I could circumvent the whole thing and go to CNN (which is reasonably centrist), but they just don't have any style. Hey, I am an American, and I like my news to have a bit of flair!
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Worst Thing
I'm not sure if I've mentioned it much here on my blog, but I've been quite vocal about all the crap that's been going down on Wall Street in the last couple years (much longer than that, in fact, but it has really only recently become a major issue among the members of the American public). At this point, I think your average person on the street is pretty deeply distrustful of AIG and Goldman Sachs and all the rest, which means that the guy who harbors a lot more anger in general (namely, me) is absolutely frothing mad that this level of corruption and exploitation of the little guy has been allowed to happen. If there's one thing I'm a big fan of, it's social justice, and there has been none of it in this area.
Our government has, as it typically does when some wrong has been done on a huge scale, waited until every last horse has escaped to close the barn door. Still, though, at least if they start regulating the activities on Wall Street, it'll prevent this sort of thing from happening again, right? Well, that's the reasoning as I understand it, and I had been of the impression myself that increased regulation was the way to go, though I generally have strong reservations about giving the government any more power, since it mostly either gets abused, or else results in even more bureaucratic red tape, if not both. With these caveats in mind, I found myself wondering if perhaps more regulation of Wall Street is not, in fact, what the problem calls for.
I recall hearing once that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians. The same thing, I think, could be said for capitalism and capitalists. I would argue that a capitalist system will necessarily contain some degree of evil. It's not that evil is inherent in the system; rather, evil is inherent in human nature. Okay, maybe evil is too strong a word here, but the bottom line is that there will always be those who look to take such a system too far. In a capitalist system, each individual is supposed to look out for his/herself first and foremost, in a fiscal sense. No question, it's good to take care of yourself, but once you are adequately taken care of, is it so wrong to take care of some others? Capitalism says yes, it is wrong to take care of others! Really, now? How many millions or billions of dollars do people need? Doesn't matter, there will always be greedy people, for whom another million dollars is of vital importance, even if they have nine hundred million other dollars, and even if they couldn't reasonably expect to spend it in their lifetime or, indeed, in several dozen lifetimes. My main problem with capitalism is that it encourages people like this. The curious thing is that socialism (for which I advocate, at least in theory) would suffer from the same problem in practice, not due to any lack of soundness in its rationale, but from that human nature thing that some of us have that makes us unsatisfied with "good enough", that makes us reach for more money, more power, more anything we can get our hands on. In fact, any system would suffer from this problem. There's always gonna be one guy (or more) looking to exploit any system that is put in place.
I wish I had a solution to propose, but I think the sad truth is that no amount of pills could cure the ills of society. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred people were essentially good (they're not), that one other guy would still fuck it all up for everyone. The good news in all this is that you'll get to keep reading my angry blogs, because I can sleep soundly knowing that there is no chance at all that we could ever hope to get every last person on this rock to be on the same page. Hell, Audrey and I can't even agree on what condiment is best used on a hot dog. And you want to get six billion-plus people to come to a consensus about what will fix all the crap that keeps going wrong with our alleged society? Good luck with that.
Our government has, as it typically does when some wrong has been done on a huge scale, waited until every last horse has escaped to close the barn door. Still, though, at least if they start regulating the activities on Wall Street, it'll prevent this sort of thing from happening again, right? Well, that's the reasoning as I understand it, and I had been of the impression myself that increased regulation was the way to go, though I generally have strong reservations about giving the government any more power, since it mostly either gets abused, or else results in even more bureaucratic red tape, if not both. With these caveats in mind, I found myself wondering if perhaps more regulation of Wall Street is not, in fact, what the problem calls for.
I recall hearing once that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians. The same thing, I think, could be said for capitalism and capitalists. I would argue that a capitalist system will necessarily contain some degree of evil. It's not that evil is inherent in the system; rather, evil is inherent in human nature. Okay, maybe evil is too strong a word here, but the bottom line is that there will always be those who look to take such a system too far. In a capitalist system, each individual is supposed to look out for his/herself first and foremost, in a fiscal sense. No question, it's good to take care of yourself, but once you are adequately taken care of, is it so wrong to take care of some others? Capitalism says yes, it is wrong to take care of others! Really, now? How many millions or billions of dollars do people need? Doesn't matter, there will always be greedy people, for whom another million dollars is of vital importance, even if they have nine hundred million other dollars, and even if they couldn't reasonably expect to spend it in their lifetime or, indeed, in several dozen lifetimes. My main problem with capitalism is that it encourages people like this. The curious thing is that socialism (for which I advocate, at least in theory) would suffer from the same problem in practice, not due to any lack of soundness in its rationale, but from that human nature thing that some of us have that makes us unsatisfied with "good enough", that makes us reach for more money, more power, more anything we can get our hands on. In fact, any system would suffer from this problem. There's always gonna be one guy (or more) looking to exploit any system that is put in place.
I wish I had a solution to propose, but I think the sad truth is that no amount of pills could cure the ills of society. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred people were essentially good (they're not), that one other guy would still fuck it all up for everyone. The good news in all this is that you'll get to keep reading my angry blogs, because I can sleep soundly knowing that there is no chance at all that we could ever hope to get every last person on this rock to be on the same page. Hell, Audrey and I can't even agree on what condiment is best used on a hot dog. And you want to get six billion-plus people to come to a consensus about what will fix all the crap that keeps going wrong with our alleged society? Good luck with that.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Beauty of Grey
After I posted on here yesterday, I checked the tally on visitors to my blog that I had installed around the time of my previous post, maybe a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I had received sixty-something visitors (or at least, sixty-something views...I may have a stalker who reads my old posts three times a day or something), and I've had another half-dozen since yesterday. I had thoroughly anticipated being disappointed by what my hit counter would reveal, but I'm glad to see that (about to go all Sally Field here) you like me! You really, really like me! Or maybe it just means that y'all have a lot of free time on your hands, but that's cool, as long as you keep reading. In all seriousness though, I really do appreciate anybody who takes the time to read my blog, it makes it feel a lot more worthwhile. Now, if I could just get more of you to leave me some comments so I know who you are and what you think, I could thank you personally!
Here's something I thought about today that I don't think I've really discussed on here. Audrey and I were heading home from the store this afternoon, listening to 700 WLW because we're old people, I guess, and the hourly news comes on, and there's something about a seventeen-year-old somewhere in the area who was killed on the roads yesterday, and almost as an afterthought, the news guy mentions that alcohol was involved. I turned to Audrey and I said, "You know, you hear that a lot with those, that alcohol was involved. Have you ever heard them say that marijuana was involved?"
There are plenty of things that I'm ambivalent about, if not outright apathetic, but I'm a pretty aggressive advocate for the legalization of pot (and a lot of other drugs as well). I'm no pothead, mind you. I've done it maybe a couple dozen times in my life, most recently something like three or four years ago. I've never done anything heavier; I've never had train tracks, I've never danced with the devil in the white dress, I've never seen the pink elephant. However, I thoroughly believe that if that's what other people want to do, they ought to damn well be allowed to. What a person does in the privacy of their own home should not be subject to persecution by anybody else, and that's just the part of me arguing in favor of personal freedom. Then there's the part of me that says, look at the financial benefit that could be had by the United States if all, or at least some of those drugs were legalized. There's the revenue that would be provided by regulating the stuff for one, but more significantly, it would nearly slice the prison population in half! That's a whole bunch of people sitting in prison right now, eating up our tax dollars to keep them fed and clothed and in an 8x10 cell, not to mention covering their court costs. And what did they do? Nothing that hurt anybody but themselves, and in the case of marijuana, not even that! Of course, I'm talking here about drug users. They should still regulate the stuff for kids, just like they do with alcohol (not that it does a lot of good), and they should still go after people who sell it to kids, but we could still get a lot of otherwise harmless people out of our prisons and save ourselves millions, maybe billions of dollars, which we could then put towards educating the kids about the stuff, and let them make their own decisions. The kids today might not seem quite so stupid if we actually gave them some wiggle room instead of just telling them what's wrong and right. It's not the same for everybody. It's a grey area, but we are long past due to, as Ed Kowalczyk put it, appreciate the beauty of grey.
Here's something I thought about today that I don't think I've really discussed on here. Audrey and I were heading home from the store this afternoon, listening to 700 WLW because we're old people, I guess, and the hourly news comes on, and there's something about a seventeen-year-old somewhere in the area who was killed on the roads yesterday, and almost as an afterthought, the news guy mentions that alcohol was involved. I turned to Audrey and I said, "You know, you hear that a lot with those, that alcohol was involved. Have you ever heard them say that marijuana was involved?"
There are plenty of things that I'm ambivalent about, if not outright apathetic, but I'm a pretty aggressive advocate for the legalization of pot (and a lot of other drugs as well). I'm no pothead, mind you. I've done it maybe a couple dozen times in my life, most recently something like three or four years ago. I've never done anything heavier; I've never had train tracks, I've never danced with the devil in the white dress, I've never seen the pink elephant. However, I thoroughly believe that if that's what other people want to do, they ought to damn well be allowed to. What a person does in the privacy of their own home should not be subject to persecution by anybody else, and that's just the part of me arguing in favor of personal freedom. Then there's the part of me that says, look at the financial benefit that could be had by the United States if all, or at least some of those drugs were legalized. There's the revenue that would be provided by regulating the stuff for one, but more significantly, it would nearly slice the prison population in half! That's a whole bunch of people sitting in prison right now, eating up our tax dollars to keep them fed and clothed and in an 8x10 cell, not to mention covering their court costs. And what did they do? Nothing that hurt anybody but themselves, and in the case of marijuana, not even that! Of course, I'm talking here about drug users. They should still regulate the stuff for kids, just like they do with alcohol (not that it does a lot of good), and they should still go after people who sell it to kids, but we could still get a lot of otherwise harmless people out of our prisons and save ourselves millions, maybe billions of dollars, which we could then put towards educating the kids about the stuff, and let them make their own decisions. The kids today might not seem quite so stupid if we actually gave them some wiggle room instead of just telling them what's wrong and right. It's not the same for everybody. It's a grey area, but we are long past due to, as Ed Kowalczyk put it, appreciate the beauty of grey.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Ignoring History
So, just about everybody and their mother (and my mother!) is on Facebook these days. Yet, suddenly, there have been numerous calls for people to delete their Facebook accounts, due to Facebook not really giving a shit about anybody wanting any degree of privacy. Most of their default settings allow pretty much anybody to see everything on your profile, pictures, contact info, you name it. This might not be such a huge issue if Facebook actually informed its users that it was doing these things, but they don't, mostly because founder Mark Zuckerberg is an ass.
Now look, personally, some of this stuff is not that big a deal to me, but I make a point of keeping myself informed when Facebook changes something, so that I can make the requisite changes to my privacy settings to keep them where I want them. Also, I don't much care who sees my profile and my info, as long as they refrain from drunk dialing me and sending me spam e-mail. It's not like my SSN and bank account numbers are up there. However, I also understand that not everybody has the same preferences I have, and if Facebook can't respect everybody's privacy of its own accord, then it needs to be forced to. This would require either government intervention, or people deleting their accounts in droves. I'm not huge on government intervention (they've got too damn much power as it is), but if they would direct it properly, that would be fine. The second option brings us back to where I started this post: deleting your account (not to be confused with deactivating your account, which is the only option Facebook readily presents you; if you want to actually delete your account, you have to dig through something like five links to get to it). As I keep myself in the know about Facebook's activities, I don't feel threatened enough by their policies to rid myself of my account at this time. It's still the most convenient way to stay in touch with friends (which is almost exclusively what I use it for), for all of its absurdity, redundant (and sometimes confusing) interface, and assload of annoying applications, which it seems like I have to Hide another dozen of every time I sign in, until I get fed up with the handful of friends who are responsible for it and just Hide them instead (or delete them altogether, if I'm feeling feisty). But, I digress.
Myspace had the market cornered for awhile there, but they fucked it up by ignoring what the users wanted. Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg ought to be keenly aware of this, lest they go the way of Myspace whenever a better alternative comes along.
Now look, personally, some of this stuff is not that big a deal to me, but I make a point of keeping myself informed when Facebook changes something, so that I can make the requisite changes to my privacy settings to keep them where I want them. Also, I don't much care who sees my profile and my info, as long as they refrain from drunk dialing me and sending me spam e-mail. It's not like my SSN and bank account numbers are up there. However, I also understand that not everybody has the same preferences I have, and if Facebook can't respect everybody's privacy of its own accord, then it needs to be forced to. This would require either government intervention, or people deleting their accounts in droves. I'm not huge on government intervention (they've got too damn much power as it is), but if they would direct it properly, that would be fine. The second option brings us back to where I started this post: deleting your account (not to be confused with deactivating your account, which is the only option Facebook readily presents you; if you want to actually delete your account, you have to dig through something like five links to get to it). As I keep myself in the know about Facebook's activities, I don't feel threatened enough by their policies to rid myself of my account at this time. It's still the most convenient way to stay in touch with friends (which is almost exclusively what I use it for), for all of its absurdity, redundant (and sometimes confusing) interface, and assload of annoying applications, which it seems like I have to Hide another dozen of every time I sign in, until I get fed up with the handful of friends who are responsible for it and just Hide them instead (or delete them altogether, if I'm feeling feisty). But, I digress.
Myspace had the market cornered for awhile there, but they fucked it up by ignoring what the users wanted. Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg ought to be keenly aware of this, lest they go the way of Myspace whenever a better alternative comes along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)