Text and Hubris

So I saw that the WSJ had an article on flarf. I was familiar with the term but I realized that I hadn’t actually written any flarf or flarf-like material. It was high time to fix this. I did a quick Google search on a few random terms and then cobbled, pulled, and played with the results to create a suitable monstrosity. What I learned is that it is a lot of fun. This isn’t work I would want published outside of an online forum and I certainly don’t consider it anything more than a chaotic scribble of text. It was fun to write, though, and rather liberating. I may play some more with it in the future.

+Iowa +Psychedelic +Flowers

There you go with that psychedelic horseshit
stuck in the muck growing flowers
while that ‘67 Charger screams
and Paul Mcartney, the mainstream cowboy,
lives it up inside some big honey mama
laid splayed on a davenport in Iowa.
Her mind’s lost in the haze of some diviner’s sage
‘cuz we’re all Hare Krishna now.
And this? Well, this is just a bit of hippie clip art
pulled from the Garden of Eden.
What did you expect,
landscape photos and the abstract?
This was a piece born outside a strip club
where redneck girls grind on lonely businessmen
though an endless parade of garage rock.
where the spiders hang from silvered string
and descend into the flowers
held in our outstretched hands
bald heads still shining in the sun.

“And then I left,” she said rather smartly to the stuffed bear who sat next to her on the bed. “Mrs. Smithson said she looked everywhere for me but I told her not to fib. I was in that room reading my book all day and she never looked in there so she didn’t look everywhere.”

Abigail paused slightly and patted the bear. It’s fur was rough and scraggly. The yellow fabric was worn and and it had only one eye which stared blankly at the girl as she told her tale. Her voice was barely a whisper now. “That was when Mrs. Smithson called Mr. Draper to come and get me.” She grabbed the bear and wrapped it in her arms. Its fur, as it had done so many times before, absorbed the quiet tears that fell from her eyes. “She didn’t know we had run away but she does now. I’m sorry Teddy but we can never go back. No, never…”

She laid down on the bed and looked out through a hole in the boarded window. The moon had risen and its light made her smile. “See, Teddy, we still have a nightlight. I told you.” She slept then and the moon looked down upon the her with its one, lonely, eye.

You know, I don’t think my few readers actually care what I have to say about Facebook or Apple. Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs and their planned direction for their companies may be interesting and important but my commentary on them is really nothing more than a repetition or qualification of what has always been said numerous times throughout the blogosphere. You can hear it and read it anywhere. Yes, I am fascinated by the privacy issues and implications of Facebook’s actions for its users. I am also fascinated and horrified by the lock down of Apple’s hardware and software. You may be, too. There are a lot of blogs who cover these topics. I know, I read them. Text and Hubris doesn’t need to be one of them.

In his late night email conversation with Ryan Tate, Steve Jobs wrote something that struck a chord with me:

“By the way, what have you done that is so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others work and belittle their motivations?

He’s right. While I think he is headed down the wrong path, it is his path to choose and he is certainly far more experienced and competent than I am in traveling those paths. My critique does nothing and it means nothing. I do more by simply deciding that I won’t buy his products until I see a shift in how his company does business. That’s my choice but my second guessing how he does business does not actually contribute to world at large.

As I mentioned in my spring wrap-up, there are plenty of good ideas and very few implementers. For all of his flaws, Steve Jobs is an excellent implementer. He gets things done. He creates and he facilitates creation. The same is true for Zuckerberg. Part of being an implementer is dealing with the thousands (or millions) of people who call you crazy or wrong. It’s being more involved in creating rather than than criticizing. Jobs didn’t want to use Adobe Flash. So he created a product that didn’t have it. That’s fine. It’s his/Apple’s creation. They can do that. Don’t like it? Make your own.

Now, I won’t be making an iPad competitor any time soon. I can create products and entertainment for platforms that share my personal philosophy, though. That I can do. I can focus my time on my own direction within this space instead of caring so much where everyone else is going. If you ask me, that is a far more productive path to follow.

Well, okay then. I was wrong. If Zuckerberg’s comments reflect Facebook’s attitude towards privacy then they should fail. Zuckerberg’s attitude to privacy and identity is truly frightening. I strongly suggest you read Michael Zimmer’s post on this (make sure to follow his links!). It highlight’s a quote from Zuckerberg that demonstrates a true lack of understanding of not just human nature but of the world in which he supposedly operates.

I’ll just post the last part of Zuckerberg’s quote that Zimmer deconstructs rather nicely.

“Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

One of the greatest features of the Internet is that is greatly expands our ability to do what we do naturally: experiment with our identity. We can shape and reshape different identities over and over again. If we don’t like something, we can delete it and start again. We can mask ourselves and listen in as people talk about ideas and beliefs in ways we couldn’t in our local community. In this way we help to clear walls that always exist in the usual spaces and can, maybe, gain a greater understanding of not just each other but ourselves. The barriers of space and perception operate very differently online and they should. Actually, they always will. This Geoff, my online persona, may share my name but he has significant differences with the Geoff in real life. As Zimmer and others note, this is just basic sociology.

Zuckerberg’s IM’s are dated and frankly I don’t believe they are worth looking at, but the rest of the material bears examination and is something that Zuckerberg is going to have to address. Something tells me that Kirkpatrick’s book will shed even more uncomfortable light on all of this. As for me, I am thinking about following in Cory Doctorow’s footsteps. I don’t use Facebook, but I certainly don’t want my account to cause anyone else to join up.

Here’s hoping that the next social site that comes along actually cares about user privacy.

I always hate it when I feel the need to clarify that I don’t hate Facebook. They have been instrumental in helping to connect people and that is something that should be recognized. Nor do I feel that they should provide their product without some expectation of payment. I don’t even mind that they share information provided that is clearly stated prior to any user signing up.

What I have an issue with is their consistent and aggressive rewriting of the rules every few months. As a user of their service, I signed up expecting ads. I also signed up expecting that I would have control over my data. Once Facebook informed me this wasn’t the case, I removed all of my important data from their site. Now, they plan to share what remains with other companies and sites even if I ask them not to. If my friend logs into a service my name goes with them regardless of what I say and I can not stop my friend from sharing at least some of my information. This is another change and while it is well within Facebook’s rights, it is also within my rights to stop using the service.

The question that I keep hearing is why would I stop? I use Tungle. I use Google services. Both of these share information about me. I have a Google profile and share my Tungle address which includes limited meeting times. How is this worse than Facebook?

The real truth is that it isn’t. That Facebook has and shares information isn’t the real issue. Oh sure, there is a great concern about any site that contains and tracks personal information but those concerns transcend Facebook and include services like Tungle and Google. The difference is that with Tungle and Google, my accounts are easily managed and I can share and hide what I like. Google provides me the capability of sharing data as I see fit. True, they deserved the massive smack they got when they broke that rule with Buzz. They also fixed it. For the most part, I have to agree to share my information. It’s an opt-in system not opt-out. For their dedication to communicating when things do change, Tungle deserves special notice. They have gone above and beyond to be very clear about what is being shared and how to manage it. Facebook could only dream of being so straightforward.

Privacy is not just about keeping things secret. It’s about control. A privacy policy should not be rewritten constantly just to fit with some new business scheme. It shouldn’t be altered without a lot of soul searching on the part of the service and even then those changes should be clearly outlined so that users can decide whether or not the service is still worth using. This is where I take issue with Facebook as a company and a service. They have failed in this regard numerous times and they have made it clear that their attention and focus is aimed not at their users but at their advertising partners. To forget the base that makes your company is a dangerous thing. Facebook would do well to remember the juggernaut that Myspace once was and what it became.

To be honest, I actually would love to see Facebook address these issues and come out as a more open company that provides complete control of its users information to its users. They have built a solid service and it is sad to it get lost under the weight of all the control issues. Will that happen? Well, that is entirely up to Facebook’s management.