Slashdot Mirror


Stephen Fry Urges Young To Flee 'Dystopian' Social Networks

An anonymous reader writes: English writer, presenter and activist Stephen Fry has urged his fans to abandon social networks, comparing such platforms to 'dystopian' forms of government seen in 1970s sci-fi films such as Logan's Run and Soylent Green. In a 2,600-word essay, the comedian, who had over four million Twitter followers prior to deleting his account in February, also compared the 'surveilled conformity' of social media to the unreal state of society depicted in The Matrix. "Who most wants you to stay on the grid? The advertisers. Your boss. Human Resources. The advertisers. Your parents (irony of ironies -- once they distrusted it, now they need to tag you electronically, share your Facebook photos and message you to death). The advertisers. The government. Your local authority. Your school. Advertisers," he writes. "Well, if you're young and have an ounce of pride, doesn't that list say it all?"

9 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No mor Frist Psots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdot is a computer blog, not a social network.

  2. Additional reading by sinij · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many prominent security researchers already spoke out against it. Including Bruce Schneier on his blog and in his recent 'Data and Goliath' book. No affiliation.

  3. Re:I need to get off my ass and... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

    What we need is a concerted effort to develop Free Software distributed/federated/p2p alternatives to all the major centralized services. Not just social networks, but even things like search.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. Smart Phones and Schools by irrational_design · · Score: 5, Informative

    This reminds me of a related issue. Apparently every teenager, except for my daughter, has a smart phone. This is assumed to such an extent that the high school teachers regularly incorporate their use into their lessons. At first they don't believe my daughter when they ask her why she isn't participating and she informs them that she doesn't have a phone (a few have actually sent her to the office for lying to them about not having a phone). Once she convinces them that she really doesn't have a phone they regularly berate her for messing up their lesson plans. I've complained to the school authorities, who assure me that a phone is not required, but to no avail. It is astonishing to me that the teachers can't comprehend that a teenager might not have a smart phone.

    1. Re:Smart Phones and Schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The school here made Facebook mandatory and they add more homework after what I considered bedtime. They also introduced the (mandatory) ability to upload the homework to the teacher. All this totally screwed my ability to filter/block to ensure a good night's sleep. On top of that, they made bringing a laptop to school mandatory as well as a net connection at home. Smartphones aren't used for teaching, but not owning one is justified reason for bullying according to some teachers.

      Back when I went to school, we used this thing called books and notebooks were made out of paper. You gave the assignments to the teacher at the start of the lecture and at the end, the teacher wrote the homework on the blackboard. After the teacher left, the homework would not be changed. There were no requirements to bring anything other than pencils and erasers. It was a wonderful setup as you could plan what you would do in the time where you were not at school and it would not suddenly be changed because some teacher decided to give homework for Monday at 7 PM on a Sunday. Using those crude learning tools, I learned enough math and physics and stuff to become an engineer. You know, I actually had to learn math and calculus using pen and paper, not some app where I would be lost without it.

      And don't get me started with Common Core. Common Core math seems to be designed to avoid understanding the underlying math.

    2. Re:Smart Phones and Schools by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      - It's harder to lose a textbook because it is only out when it is being used, a smartphone would get used for everything
      - No one is going to want to steal a textbook
      - A textbook can't do any of the things on the internet that a parent might also forbid
      - A textbook doesn't distract from classes or learning or face to face social activity
      - When it is lost or destroyed, a textbook is significantly cheaper to replace than a smartphone.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. Re:Noise and Crap Opinions by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1, Informative

    alternative solutions for a parent to share pictures

    I use email. More specifically yahoo and/or gmail. Both have image drag and drop.

  6. Re:But by lgw · · Score: 5, Informative

    Today's young are already crippled by more debt than they can ever pay off in their life times

    The US national debt is over $160,000 per taxpayer. Great gift to our kids to go with their college loans. Unfunded liabilities are over $850,000 per taxpayer, so just over a million total. I'm sure today's youth will get right on paying that while I'm in retirement. (And yet, suggest on /. that maybe we could spend a bit less and someone will reply asking "why don't you move to Somalia", as if the extremes were our only choices.)

    Another fun stat: the total value of all assets in America is slightly less than the total of various government debts and unfunded liabilities. This will inevitably end in "but though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy," which is actually good news for those under crippling personal debt, as enough inflation fixes that problem.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Re:No mor Frist Psots by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know... You're probably right - you probably could lose your job for that.

    You know... It might be worth having a meaningful discussion about legislating that non-criminal political activity is a protected class. You *should* be able to be lawfully politically active and retain your job though, I suppose, there would need to be some sort of balance to that as people are prone to wanting rights and liberties without accepting responsibility and accountability.

    It would probably be hard to strike a meaningful balance, one that is politically viable in the current climes, and actually find the sweet spot. That's gonna need some thinking and is going to need input from other people. I've never really thought about it but it sure as hell seems like that should be something you're granted some protections for. At the same time, I'm pretty big on contracts and willful negotiations between two or more consenting adults and doing so with as little government encroachment/enforcement as is logical to accept.

    That's a tough one and I don't say this often enough but it's sometimes good to have the ACs around. I've never been one to suggest they be barred but I've seen others who absolutely abhor the idea of people posting anonymously. Truth be told, the function is often used to less than stellar results. But...

    Then there are times like this - which is why I'm a proponent and allow for it at my own sites. There are times when ACs say things that make you think about things you might not otherwise have considered. They're sometimes able to say things they would not be able to say without the benefits of anonymity. It's why I strongly support accepting the inferior AC posts and outright abusive AC posts.

    But, I do not often say thank you. Or at least not often enough do I say so. So thanks. You've given me some mental bubble gum - it's a bit of a crossroads with my ideals and it's actually a more defining statement than one might think - where one comes down on the side of this sort of thing. Non-criminal political activity should have some protections. Those protections have been, largely, anonymity in the past - if you wanted. Or at least obfuscation and low chance of discovery.

    With everything being uploaded, indexed, crawled, and made available for free or for price, that protection is no longer there or no longer as strong. So, do we need government intervention for such protections? It's imperative to keep in mind that it will be that same government deciding the nature of the act and if such is a criminal offense... There's really more to it, when you think about it, than initially appears and I'm not actually sure where I fall. I've never pondered it and I've not actually decided.

    Yeah, I'm comfortable saying that I need to think about it a while longer.

    But, the point is that your post is actually a good example of the value of anonymity, pseudonymity, and obfuscation-aminimity. (It's a word, I just made it up.) On top of that, your post also brings to light some additional things - like should their be protections for that so that you don't actually have to hide your political ideology and activities? If so, where should those protections come from? Should they be made by you, the employee, before you agree to exchange your labor for money? Should those protections come at the hands of a union? Should participation in that union, and thus funding, be mandatory or voluntary? If it's voluntary then is one obligated to the protections afforded by that union - is one still able to create one's own employment contract? Should that protection come with the force of law and at the barrel of a gun or by means of financial punishments or perhaps removal of one's physical freedoms?

    Like I said, if you give it more than just a casual thought, there's more to it than meets the eye. So, thank you Mr. Anonymous Coward. Thank you.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."