Slashdot Mirror
The End of Forgetting
Hugh Pickens recommends a long piece in last week's NY Times Magazine covering a wide swath of research and thinking in the US and elsewhere on the subject of the perils to society of recording everything permanently, and the idea that perhaps we ought to build forgetting into the Internet. "We've known for years that the Web allows for unprecedented voyeurism, exhibitionism, and inadvertent indiscretion, but we are only beginning to understand the costs of an age in which so much of what we say, and of what others say about us, goes into our permanent — and public — digital files. The fact that the Internet never seems to forget is, at an almost existential level, threatening to our ability to control our identities; to preserve the option of reinventing ourselves and starting anew. In a recent book, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, the cyberscholar Viktor Mayer-Schönberger cites the case of Stacy Snyder — who was denied a teaching certificate on the basis of a single photo on MySpace — as a reminder of the importance of 'societal forgetting.' By erasing external memories, he says in the book, 'our society accepts that human beings evolve over time, that we have the capacity to learn from past experiences and adjust our behavior.' In traditional societies, where missteps are observed but not necessarily recorded, the limits of human memory ensure that people's sins are eventually forgotten. By contrast, Mayer-Schönberger notes, a society in which everything is recorded 'will forever tether us to all our past actions, making it impossible, in practice, to escape them.' He concludes that 'without some form of forgetting, forgiving becomes a difficult undertaking.'"
This article made me wish I had posted this as Anonymous Coward...
/thread
In soviet Russia, God creates you!
What needs to change is the social practice of judging ppl too harshely, not the storage value of the internet.
Maybe this kind of thing will cause a shift in people's opinions. Perhaps when people realize that everybody has made bad decisions in their life, everybody's got too drunk and done something stupid and nobody is perfect, the world will be a better place for it.
So don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
This is pretty easy. The problem is making sure other people don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
If the internet remembered everything to begin with, the invention of deletion would be the revolution.
What use does remembering have if you can't distinguish what is important?
Nature is fully capable of remembering, yet it has built us to forget.
Mother nature knows best. Let go of what doesn't matter. Forgive and forget. We need to trust in the process (or whatever) that created us. Wanting to retain everything is simply being greedy, and no good will come of it.
'without some form of forgetting, forgiving becomes a difficult undertaking.'
Forgiving should never be based on forgetting.
Forgive, yes - give another chance, people change, mistakes of the past should not be repeated.
Forget? - This is a guaranteed method to repeat the mistakes of the past.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Maybe it's more of a problem with our two-faced, overly moralistic society. Instead of "forgetting" that other people started off young and exhibitionist, we should "remember" that many of the people bitching started off the same way too. And maybe those people should forgive other people when they realize they have their own faults. Or even better, not judge people according to their own personal moral codes.
This is pretty easy. The problem is making sure other people don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
This could be especially problematic as surveillance becomes more and more popular. That, and the increased capacity to crack security (either through botnets, or exploiting weaknesses in algorithms)
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Some people are slow to catch on that if it's on the internet, the world can see it. So don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
That's fine, except that I may not be the only one posting stuff about me.
In the given example, the teacher could have been very careful not to put her drunk party photo online. But if someone else at the same party was less thoughtful, it could have had exactly the same effect, but completely out of her control.
Even more worrying is the possibility of people deliberately destroying another's reputation. There's no shortage of people in this world with a grudge against someone else. It's quite easy to imagine an example where someone fails to get a job because of something someone has posted about them. It needn't even be true; a prospective employer isn't going to take time to give you the benefit of the doubt when there's plenty of other candidates. And the person in question may never even find out what it was that lost them the job; they just don't get to the next interview stage.
And then there's the mistaken identity issue. Having googled myself a few years ago, I know of the existence of at least four other people who share my name (I have a fairly uncommon name). They're all quite different people and most of the time it's obvious which one of us a given web page is about. But not always. And especially in the age of 140 character tweets, it would be very easy for someone to take a reference to one of us and mis-interpret it as referring to another.
What if you were arrested for shoplifiting in a small town where the newspaper publishes the daily arrest record online? Later you are convicted and your sentence includes getting your record expunged once you serve your community service. However, the record in the paper of your arrest is not. The town doesn't have the power to tell the paper to expunge your record. A background check might find that arrest, but not evidence of the outcome. Now you could lose jobs, security clearences all for something that is not supposed to exist. When your record is expunged, you are supposed to be able to answer no to having been arrested, but the internet says otherwise.
When did drinking at a party suddenly become a reason to be denied a teaching certification?
Palm trees and 8
Why should employers be judging people for going to a party? Look at the first paragraph -- the teacher was fired because a photo of her drinking at a party was "encouraging drinking" and might be found by her students. We are not talking about something horrifying here, we are talking about an adult having a drink and the terrifying possibility that children might see adults drinking.
The problem is not the teacher, nor is it the fact that the teacher posted the picture online. The problem is that people believe that it is terrible for a teacher to go to a party and have a drink, and that if she chooses to do that, she should hide it away like a dirty secret.
Palm trees and 8
So don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
The key problem here is that, in cases such as the given example, it's not dirty laundry. The social issue at hand isn't so much the retention of information, but the ability (or, in this case, inability) of people in society to properly parse and understand that information. A company would seriously be fooling itself if it thinks it preserved some kind of integrity by not hiring someone who occasionally unwinds with friends at a party. They already have employees who do that, they just ignore the fact that they don't actively know about it. The fact that they can't distinguish between the two is a problem.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
I am technically generation Y. I'm right on the border with generation X, so my first exposure to the Internet came at 1995 when I was in middle school. There is a marked difference between the older half and the younger half of gen Y in how we view the Internet. The younger half puts it all out there without any attempt to make it hard for busy bodies and ne'erdowells to connect the dots or find them. When people act like this culture of letting it all hang out online is something inherent to the Internet, I take great offense to that because I am old enough to remember how mainstream culture first interacted with the Internet and it was with a hell of a lot more sense than we often have today.
The fact is that society is getting dumber. Systematically dumber. I know this not just from watching how my own generation is starting to behave, but from listening to how my dad recounts how law enforcement **used to be**. He was a cop in the post-Vietnam era. He retired in 1996 and has very little good to say about how cops behave today. No common sense, no independent thought, no questioning whether following orders actually helps the rule of law. It touches everything. Our society is getting dumber, more legalistic and less capable of sensible behavior.
It's also getting a lot more judgmental. I think this is a natural reaction to people seeing all of this stuff that went on behind closed doors, but the fact remains that either people have to learn how to compartmentalize behavior (like disregard a politician's past, if they have what it takes to be an effect, informed leader) or actually dramatically reduce the visibility-by-internet of society.
This isn't about forgetting on the web, it's about managing your public image. Some people are slow to catch on that if it's on the internet, the world can see it. So don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
Wrong.
This isn't about managing your public image, and it doesn't matter if you don't put your dirty laundry on the Internet. If she hadn't posted that picture, somebody else might very well have done that, and the consequences would have been the same.
The problem isn't that this picture was posted. The problem is that the school board over-reacted to something that really had absolutely no bearing on her ability to teach.
The problem is that we're seriously blurring the line between public and private... Between our professional time and our personal time... Between our professional occupations and our leisure occupations...
We've got some kind of new Puritanism going around. You have to uphold the professionalism of your position 24/7. There is no room these days for being human.
Obviously we don't want our high school teachers showing up to work drunk. We don't want them drinking on the job. But she's a human being, and entitled to do whatever the hell she wants to in her off time.
But now she can't. Because somebody might snap a picture of her getting drunk. And somebody might post that on the Internet. And then she might get fired from some other job.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
How many times do you hear a statement like, "he never drinks," being used as a euphemism for, "he is a moral and upstanding citizen" or something to that effect? Americans are being conditioned to think that going to a party and using drugs reflects negatively on a person. If the media is to be believed, then having a beer after work is something that you need to hide from your boss, friends, and family, and the only people who are going to join you are lonely and depressed.
Palm trees and 8
The problem isn't that we need to forget, the problem is that we need to *forgive*. Before this "memory" we were able to live in a fantasy/delusional world where high school and college students were all saints and boy scouts. Now, for a younger generation, party pics are there to remind them that they weren't. I bet the very same people who denied this teacher her certificate did the exact same thing when they were young. But they want to pretend (to their colleagues, to their kids, maybe even to themselves) that they didn't. And what better way to do that than to take it out on some poor girl whose only sin was growing up in a time where there are more cameras and an internet around?
We need a lot less sanctimony and a lot more "So he/she partied in college...but who didn't?"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The issue isn't one of morality. The issue is that the vast majority of people do not follow the rules they espouse. That's why people hate the internet "memory." It exposes them for who they are, or at least who they used to be. The immediacy of information connects us with the past, and can help us make better decisions for the future. CIA coups used to be considered conspiracy theories, but now anyone can look at the source documents for themselves. News stories about what someone reportedly said are routinely dismissed, but a video of the same event makes refuting history much more difficult. In short, reality is much harder to dismiss for the people who are genuinely interested to find out what that is.
So, I'd rather not build in forgetting. I'd rather people learn to be more accepting of everyone and more skeptical of every asshole who wants to impose their morality on others. The ubiquity of distributed recording devices, and the network to freely share that media, is the most dangerous threat to the status quo since the scientific method, and for the same reason: it trades authority and mysticism for reality and results.
I realise this is all very well for me to say, but I've always known that this was the case and acted accordingly. On a simple level, I've never said anything online that I wouldn't say to my mother or I wouldn't be prepared to stand behind in future. There is no such thing as anonymity on the 'net, never has been. That's the reason why I don't have alt's. There isn't anything to gain.
I do recognise however that most of the non-geek audience won't have thought of this, and may be bitten, but them's the breaks IMO. The expectation of anonymity is no excuse for acting like an idiot. That said my hormones had already raged. Though Dr Aleks Krotoski does say that in the future, people who do not have a complete record, warts and all, will not be taken seriously, because they are not fully three dimensional people.
You are completely missing the point.
Most of us have gotten drunk at some point in time. Most of us have done something at least vaguely embarrassing at some point in time. Most of us have at least one photo of us doing something stupid that we aren't terribly proud of. None of that should preclude us from getting a job.
My wife went to the local county fair on Friday. They had a stage hypnotist. She volunteered. She was making a fool of herself on stage - dancing around like Lady Gaga, fighting non-existent birds, searching for her stolen belly button. There is video of the event. Is it OK for somebody not to hire her because she made a fool of herself? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't project the kind of professionalism that we expect here.
It doesn't matter if you're careful to censor yourself on-line, somebody else could post a photo of you doing something unprofessional. It really shouldn't matter if you're being unprofessional outside of work, because you're not at work.
The problem isn't that this lady got drunk... The problem isn't that a photo was taken... The problem isn't that the photo was posted to MySpace... The problem isn't that somebody else saw the photo...
The problem is that these folks based a hiring decision on what this lady did in her free time, rather than how qualified she was to do the job.
What's next? Only hiring folks that play D&D? Not hiring people who like Halo? Attend a Gay Pride rally and you're fired? Vote the wrong way and you're suspended for a week?
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
But hang on a minute. It isn't the puritanical pricks who are posting those photos; I personally would never post any picture of anyone in a public place without their permission (if it's evidence of illegality, go to the police.) It's...the people who "know how to have a good time". And who are the people who post inappropriate images out of a desire to bully or mock? Check. Perhaps someone needs a slight values reassessment.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Sure. But for how long and for how much? A number of long term societal trends mean we're supposed to be responsible for everything we say and do forever and at great consequence. If we drink too much at a party and act like an ass, it's no longer enough to apologize and/or endure some humiliation; instead, if the incident makes it on the internet, we're supposed to give up forever any chance of achieving a position of responsibility, whether that be political office or gainful employment. A statute of limitations really isn't enough, and a "lighten up" law isn't likely to succeed.
Cyclical disasters and extinctions certainly occur, empires rise and fall; there are cycles to all things.
When all the people get dumb, rude and hopeless, it's nearly always an indicator that powerful societal shifts are just around the corner.
The human population as a whole has walked around many such corners during its time occupying this globe, and I see no reason to think that this process will overlook our current time. That some ancients noted the same patterns before their own societies eventually crumbled only lends credence to the OP's observations.
The difference today, is that our high-tech society allows for a speedier realization of the process outcome.
-FL
And who says THEY posted the picture? On facebook, for example, any and all pictures you have been tagged in can be linked to through your profile. You have the option to remove your name from the tags in a picture, but those can be readily re-added, and there is still a time delay between when you are tagged in the picture, when (and if!) you receive the notification that you were tagged in the picture, and when you can remove the tag. Facebooks notification's aren't as good as they could be- I had a photo of my car, with license plate visible, and something legal but VERY morally questionable depicted in the picture- I was not present in the picture, not was I aware the picture even existed, and I missed the tag notification. A week later, someone commented on the photo and I got THAT notification, but I have no way of knowing how many individuals saw the picture in question in the interim...