Facebook

[Mandryka]

It is all of a mixed blessing. I belong to two groups by which it is excellent for keeping in touch, as well as my further family group. However, it is very much based on an American model of sociability which is apparently obligatory, hence all the rubbish with 'friends' and 'buddys' and increasingly options for which members are automatically linked into.

It also begs a question: do people no longer value their privacy? And has discretion, once considered a virtue been cast aside altogether. Certainly one would have to assume given the full-voiced mobile phone conversations one has to endure on the train.

Agree with all this. The American-orientated nature of the thing is given away by its refusal to allow people to describe themselves as 'socialists', or anything further left than that (though I don't think you can call yourself a fascist, either).

I'm on it, but tend to use it passively. There is something indescribably narcissistic about updating your 'status', though it's useful for getting in touch with people and drawing attention to interesting articles/events.

Don't see the point of twitter at all.

[PJPJ]

I don't tweet. However, I've been on Facebook for some years. My privacy setting is at its highest and I've received no junk mail. On the other hand, I have been contacted by relatives in the US with whom I had not been in touch at all, and, as I have so very few, that seemed to double their number.

I subscribe to a number of groups, the Horenstein one for a start. I'm not using Facebook in the way intended, I guess, as I log on only every couple of weeks or so.

[cavatina]

It also begs a question: do people no longer value their privacy? And has discretion, once considered a virtue been cast aside altogether.

The Japanese social critic, bon vivant, and underworld crime figure Manabu Miyazaki once made an interesting observation that when someone knows he's under surveillance, he has one of two options--either shut down and hide in the corner, or live more loudly and openly than ever before in an attempt to own your own narrative.

Put another way, people are talking about you? Give them something to talk about on your terms, not theirs. Define yourself before people define you. You don't like the conceptual boxes into which people are pigeonholing you? Put yourself out there and make your own damn boxes.

In a word, I think many young people choose to face the death of privacy by owning their own narrative.

[Panjandrum]

Don't see the point of twitter at all.

This reminds me of the type of comment made when the mobile (or cellphone) arrived on the scene. That didn't last did it? Twitter can be priceless for communicating with a large of number of people when organising events (E.g. One tweet = 20 phone calls/emails etc). Privacy can be maintained by blocking unwanted "followers" and by limiting the amount of personal information you provide on your profile.

It's also a way of being first on the news if you "follow" certain organisations, people who tweet articles, links to articles etc. The key is to be selective in whom you follow.

However, if you're a curmudeon or a friendless hermit, then I agree - no point.

[Petrushka]

My own experience exactly, Pianorak. I couldn't unsubscribe quickly enough. Incidentally, should anyone have difficulties doing this (and Facebook make it difficult to do so), I provide here a useful link from last year's Telegraph which shows you in easy stages how to unsubscribe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...k-account.html

Thanks for that useful link. MickyD.

A memo went up on our office wall a few months ago saying that management had the ability to view negative comments about the company on the internet (including Facebook) and any people making such comments would be subject to disciplinary action. I was so concerned about the company's wish to spy on its own employees that I ceased all Facebook activity and just want to delete my account. Thanks to MickyD I can now do so.

[Don Basilio]

The odd thing about FB seems to me that it assumes all your "friends" share the same interests, whereas mine don't. I have an enthusiastic monarchist (of otherwise left wing sympathies) friend and a passionate republican and I hope they don't notice each other.

And although I realise it can be nice to share photos of social events with other FB friends, it is also letting all the friends not there know that they weren't invited.

I have not given details of any personal opinions. To the question "Religious views", I replied "Yes".

[cavatina]

A memo went up on our office wall a few months ago saying that management had the ability to view negative comments about the company on the internet (including Facebook) and any people making such comments would be subject to disciplinary action.

This makes me so angry, if you PM me the name of the company, I'll be delighted to pop off a hundred or so negative comments just on the principle of the thing. Seriously, I'm game. Would you prefer "calm and well-reasoned", "sardonic a******", or "devious flamebait"? I can do them all, you know. Oh, and I'd delete this message of course.

The odd thing about FB seems to me that it assumes all your "friends" share the same interests, whereas mine don't.

I forgot to mention I have different accounts for different circles, some with my real full name, some not. There's no way on earth I'm mixing Promenaders with investment bankers with cat rescuers with...er, other people.

But like I said, mostly I just eavesdrop on people since it's all too time-consuming.

[Panjandrum]

There's no way on earth I'm mixing Promenaders with investment bankers

I take it you're using rhyming slang?

[cavatina]

Indeed.

[EdgeleyRob]

Don't see the point of twitter at all.

Don't see the point of Facebook either.I have never been them despite pleas from friends and family to do so.
Crikey I have only just got the hang of posting on forums

[Serial_Apologist]

The Japanese social critic, bon vivant, and underworld crime figure Manabu Miyazaki once made an interesting observation that when someone knows he's under surveillance, he has one of two options--either shut down and hide in the corner, or live more loudly and openly than ever before in an attempt to own your own narrative.

Put another way, people are talking about you? Give them something to talk about on your terms, not theirs. Define yourself before people define you. You don't like the conceptual boxes into which people are pigeonholing you? Put yourself out there and make your own damn boxes.

In a word, I think many young people choose to face the death of privacy by owning their own narrative.

I.e. getting your retailiation in first? For my own part I've never been able to figure out why it is that some people choose to throw themselves into the spotlight, whether in the first place or *post hoc*.

Here's what Alan Watts had to say about our western culture of individualism, how it shapes the way we perceive ourselves by virtue of it, how we tie ourselves in knots trying to scheme ourselves out it while not seeing (through) it for what it is, because we are 'bugged' by the rules - rules which include language, which he has explained earlier. This is from "Psychotherapy East and West" - and for me he remains unsuperceded:

'George Herbert Mead [...] goes on to show that the "I", the biological individual, can become conscious of itself only in terms of the "me", but that this latter is a view of itself given to it by other people.

'"The individual enters as such into his own experience only as an object, not as a subject; and he can enter as an object only on the basis of social relations and interactions, only by means of his experiential transactions with other individuals in an organised social environment ... only by taking the attitudes of others towards himself - is he able to become an object to himself"

'As a result the mind or psychological structure of the individual cannot be identified with some entity inside his skin.

'"If the mind is socially constituted, then the field or locus of any given individual mind must extend as far as the social activity or apparatus of social relations which constitutes it extends; and hence that field cannot be bounded by the skin of the individual organism to which it belongs"

"And that is just the paradox of the situation: society gives us the idea that the mind or ego is inside the skin and that it acts on its own apart from society.

"Here, then, is a major contradiction in the rules of the social game. The members of the game are to play *as if* they were independent agents, but they are not to *know* that they are just playing as if! It is explicit in the rules that the individual is self-determining, but implicit that he is only so by virtue of the rules. Furthermore, while he is defined as an independent agent, he must not be so independent as not to submit to the rules which define him. Thus he is defined as an agent in order to be held responsible to the group for 'his' actions. The rules of the game confer independence and take it away at the same time, without revealing the contradiction.

"This is the predicament which Gregory Bateson calls the 'double-bind', where the individual is called upon to take two mutually exclusive courses of action and at the same time is prevented from being able to coment on the paradox. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and you mustn't realize it ..." (Pantheon, NY 1961, publ in GB 1972 - PP 38-39)

From this, as I understand it, one would deduce that ownership of any narrative on oneself is also subject to "the rules", and any identity adhering thereto so fleeting as not worth the candle holding onto, least of all for ongoing use as some kind of preemptive strike force. We "know" this to be the case when we indulge in the loss of selfhood involved in really listening to music, as one example, allowing ones intuition (which needn't exclude the intellect but doesn't put too big an investment on it) be ones guide, rather than for example (heavy irony emoticon) using "the composer's intentions" as a surrogate for that by which the listener could be guided to listen.

S-A

[cavatina]

Don't see the point of Facebook either.I have never been them despite pleas from friends and family to do so.

You could always create an account with a throwaway email address, put in as little personal information as possible, let people who are mad to connect with you do so, and sit back and enjoy the show.

I actually manage a skeletal pseudo-account like this for a curmudgeonly friend of mine who can't be bothered...next to no work, but it has enabled him to meet up with old business contacts and remote family members, so I suppose it's a good thing. 99.9999% of what people post is gut-wrenchingly boring, though...agh.

Has anyone else noticed that the new "hey baby, can I get your number" is "can I friend you on Facebook"? Annoying as hell.

[Stillhomewardbound]

The philosophy of all this is interesting, but rather detached from the reality.

Ironically perhaps, for the son of an actor, my siblings and I were were brought up not be show-offs or precocious. This was in part because of what passed for good manners, ie. not imposing oneself on others needlessly, or without invitation. Maybe there was an element also that both Ma and Pa were quite shy and vulnerable people.

I know that at times I can be very garrulous, but equally I can close down very quickly. Sometimes if I'm approached by someone who is all a bit much I can hear myself intoning, internally ... 'I don't believe that we've been introduced ... and I intend to keep it that way.'

The problem with me perhaps is that I very much of a lone woolf and I like to remain aloof a lot of time. This is why I get so effronted by social overspill.

Don't get me too wrong. I am a warm, friendly personality but more of an observer than a joiner.

[Serial_Apologist]

The philosophy of all this is interesting, but rather detached from the reality.

Ironically perhaps, for the son of an actor, my siblings and I were were brought up not be show-offs or precocious. This was in part because of what passed for good manners, ie. not imposing oneself on others needlessly, or without invitation. Maybe there was an element also that both Ma and Pa were quite shy and vulnerable people.

I know that at times I can be very garrulous, but equally I can close down very quickly. Sometimes if I'm approached by someone who is all a bit much I can hear myself intoning, internally ... 'I don't believe that we've been introduced ... and I intend to keep it that way.'

The problem with me perhaps is that I very much of a lone woolf and I like to remain aloof a lot of time. This is why I get so effronted by social overspill.

Don't get me too wrong. I am a warm, friendly personality but more of an observer than a joiner.

Then that makes two of us, SHB!

[David Underdown]

I've found Facebook, and more recently, Twitter, quite useful. Keeping in touch with friends, getting back in touch with people. It's easy enough to lock things down if you want to, restrict photos and wall postings and photos to specific (groups of) people and so on (though it would be nice if the defaults were more secure)

In addition to my personal account I maintain pages for Promenaders' Musical Charities and Twickenham Choral Society. For PMC this is currently the only web presence we have, so it gives some info on who we are and what we do, and of course during the season regular updates on the collection total. We also use Twitter - both these expand the range of our usual interval shouts (helped by the BBCProms account regularly retweeting to their much larger group of followers). For TCS, Facebook is more of an adjunct to the main website, addressed more at the social side of the choir, but also a bit of a marketing tool as it allows members and others to circulate concert details and the like to their Facebook friends very easily