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?"

Comments

But

[irrational_design]

But, but, but... without social media how can I create a fake version of myself to make all of my "friends" envious so they Like me?

Re:But

[sinij]

The good old way, by up keeping up with the Joneses.

Re:But

[peragrin]

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

Re:But

[Drethon]

Well time is money, one could spend time instead of money. Or is that too much?

Re:But

[thinkwaitfast]

Or you could just be a decent person. It doesn't require any money.

Re:But

[Pfhorrest]

Get some unlimited web hosting for the cost of a about one cheap meal a month, install free blog software on it, and craft your fake online persona there, where you control the information, not Facebook/Twitter/whoever.

Re:But

[JaredOfEuropa]

What are these crippling debts? Two things come to mind: student loans and mortgages. A typical mortgage runs 25-30 years and the monthly payments have repayment of the debt already factored in (if you have any annuitary or lineair mortgage), and according to the WSJ, US student loans are on average $35k. That's a lot, and alarmingly higher than the average of only a decade ago, but certainly not something that you cannot repay in a reasonable time frame.

Not sure how it is in the US, but one problem here is that it is becoming harder for young people to secure a mortgage, even if they have a decent income. That means they have to rent, which is relatively expensive, and instead of building equity they'll be paying a landlord.

Re:But

[sinij]

Or you could just be a decent person. It doesn't require any money.

This won't achieve GGP's stated goals.

Re:But

[ultranova]

But, but, but... without social media how can I create a fake version of myself to make all of my "friends" envious so they Like me?

Make a Slashdot account and post comments designed to be modded +5 Funny.

Re:But

[lgw]

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.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't kid yourself. Virtue is an expensive luxury.

Re:But

[Maxo-Texas]

In 1983 to 1992, I got my degree.

I had no scholorship or grants (mainly because I came from a single mom high school dropout - I had good grades and a she got me a letter of acceptance to the coast guard).

I graduated after 10 years with zero debt. In large part due to a per semester cost of $180 (to $300 at the end) for a 12 hour load. Another $100 (to about $200) for books.

$35k is basically all of your ability to save for a decade.

Now that a college degree is basically required, we should extend public schooling for many basic degrees (like business, math, english) thru college years at no expense to people which will help create a pool of well qualified citizens.

The best way to do this is to set up 50 new free colleges which each can handle 10,000 students where the masters degree staff is paid reasonable (sub 6 figure) wages without bloated pensions and where they teach in inexpensive buildings instead of marble and granite palaces. They would be allowed to use only 1 standard set of ebook format texts which were provided free to the students (including updates) for life.

Anyone graduating from these colleges would have 10% of their after tax wages garnished for 8 years which would be fed back into the system. There would be no scholarships, no grants.

The sports programs would be between the 59 new colleges (only) and be written from the beginning to be self funded by students and alumni donations. A quarter of income earned by the sports program would feed back into the school budget. The schools (one per state and major territory) would be open to any united states (and associated territorial) citizen.

That's what we essentially had with public state university's until about 1992. But now all the public state university's have been corrupted and charge $4000+ tuition and allow professors to require purchase of $150 (or more) books which are never used in class.

Re:But

[lgw]

Plenty of people who make $60,000 a year are able to handle a $200,000 mortgage, for example--so why shouldn't a country be able to handle a debt commensurate with its income?

Because your analogy isn't numerically accurate. Proportional to $60,000 income, the federal debt would be $348,000. That's the sort of ratio that led to the 2008 collapse.

Thus, we can never default on the debt because we can print more money.

"We all had plenty of money, but there was nothing our money could buy"

ut in the late 2000s and early 2010s we effectively printed trillions of dollars with our quantitative-easing program

Nope, we didn't add anything to the money supply, because bank reserves on deposit with Fed increased at roughly the same rate that QE printed money for the government to spend. The other shoe still hasn't dropped for QE. This was an innovative idea by the Fed (really clever IMO) and we can't guess how it will play out when next we see a strong economy.

Re:But

[Pfhorrest]

Proportional to $60,000 income, the federal debt would be $348,000. That's the sort of ratio that led to the 2008 collapse.

That's better than a median-income Californian buying a median-priced home in California, so I guess that entire (most populous in the country) state is fucked.

Also, the national debt is only about one year of mean income per citizen, so if we were to tax all citizens (why are there so few taxpayers compared to citizens anyway?) -- proportional to their income of course, so as not to burden the already-overburdened -- this would not be an issue at all. Charge every citizen 2% of their income and the debt will go away in one working generation (50 years, i.e. people just starting working when it's implemented would retire just as it was finished). And since we'd do that progressively of course, proportional to their income, only people in the 75th percentile (the mean income is about double the median) would actually pay that 2%, three quarters would pay less (most of them much less), and the slack would be taken up by those who can more than afford it at the very top.

Re:But

[lgw]

That's better than a median-income Californian buying a median-priced home in California, so I guess that entire (most populous in the country) state is fucked.

I agree completely: the entire state is fucked. Have you seen their pension debt? The counties with >100% of revenue needed to meet pensions (not much better at the state level). Escapeing CA was the best move I ever made.

Also, the national debt is only about one year of mean income per citizen, so if we were to tax all citizens (why are there so few taxpayers compared to citizens anyway?) -

Good luck taxing 4-year-olds, the homeless, those primarily living on government checks, etc. We tax the employed, and the wealthy.

Charge every citizen 2% of their income

That will about cover the interest on the debt (long term average, interest is very cheap now of course). And it misses two key points: we currently tax plenty to pay off the debt, but we spend more. Further, no tax plan has ever sustained more than 20% of GDP as revenue (which would be fine if we had any spending discipline). Also, the more you tax the highest incomes, the more revenue will dip in recessions

Re:But

[Pfhorrest]

And thus are the ones responsible for most of that debt in the first place.

But the point was not that this would be easy to convince the right people to do, just that it'd be an easy solution if only bad people weren't standing in the way of it.

Like the solutions to many problems.

Re:But

[Pfhorrest]

Have you seen their pension debt?

Are you talking about the government of California, or the people of California? I was talking about the set of all individual Californians and their average personal finances; it sounds like you're talking about the California government.

Good luck taxing 4-year-olds, the homeless, those primarily living on government checks, etc. We tax the employed, and the wealthy.

Having no (or negligible) income, those people would pay effectively (or literally) nothing if we taxed every citizen proportional to their income, so that makes no difference to my proposal. And most of those who do have income, who would pay, would pay much less than the $160k per taxpayer you quote, if we distributed the burden proportional to income, because most of those taxpayers make very little anyway, and a small handful of them make staggeringly, absurdly more and can easily absorb the difference.

That will about cover the interest on the debt (long term average, interest is very cheap now of course). And it misses two key points: we currently tax plenty to pay off the debt, but we spend more.

Yeah, this entire thing is contingent on first stopping the deficit, including the ongoing interest on the debt. But the point is that the amount of debt currently accumulated through that long-running deficit is not yet catastrophic (and consequently, stopping its slow growth is not a "by any means!" urgent priority, though it should certainly be a priority). If the problem stopped where it was now, it wouldn't be very painful at all for one generation to reverse it, provided the burden was properly distributed by ability to bear it. So so long as it's not getting much worse very quickly, we can afford to let it slide and fix other, bigger problems first.

no tax plan has ever sustained more than 20% of GDP as revenue

Maybe you're saying something than I think you're saying, but according to the site you cited, revenue per GDP is presently around 35%, and I recall looking at a similar (probably the very same) site years ago and seeing a similar 35% figure, and from what I've read tax rates are presently lower than they were in far more prosperous eras of American history.

Re:But

[Pfhorrest]

Not sure how it is in the US, but one problem here is that it is becoming harder for young people to secure a mortgage, even if they have a decent income. That means they have to rent, which is relatively expensive, and instead of building equity they'll be paying a landlord.

Not only that, but those who have a decent income and can secure a mortgage still end up paying more in interest alone than they would otherwise be paying in rent, so have to save up even more enormous down payments to bring the interest down to the point that buying actually brings any financial relief. (Renting money, i.e. paying interest, is no better than renting property; still throwing money down a hole and getting nothing to your name for it). Meanwhile property prices are rising so the amount needed to save up to reach that point continues, and the whole while you're still paying money you'd rather be spending on a house to a landlord undermining your ability to save, and that rent continues to go up, and good luck fighting for your wages to even keep pace with those rising costs much less outpace them, especially if you're already to the right of the curve and your boss is wondering why he pays you more than average...

Re:But

[MrKrillls]

What led to the 2008 collapse wasn't the kinds of ratios you speak of.

It was a long chain of bad decisions in a number of places:

Banks and brokerages who went wild buying and selling derivatives, the risk of which they did not waste time understanding.

Banks, brokerages and others who offered up loans to people who had not a chance of paying back.

People who couldn't rub two nickles together who signed for said loans.

Real estate appraisals that were wildly overstated. Said high valuations made the loans appear reasonable if one wasn't really looking too closely.

Banks and brokerages who bundled bad loans together in great masses and proclaimed that a lot of bad loans were safer than a few.

Insurance companies like AIG who massively underpriced mortgage default insurance to sell a lot quickly and who paid too little attention to the risks they were taking on.

Government regulators who turned a blind eye to a rising and pervasive level of entangled risk that threatened to take down the whole system.

Wall streeters who dove way too deep for quick profit and ignored and lied about risk.

The ratios you note should always be watched closely, but they were not the culprits in 2008.

The desire for a quick buck regardless of risk undermined the market.

The deeply entangled ownership of derivatives among too few, and too large, mega firms made any negative market "event" for one of those firms capable of taking them all down.

Re:But

[lgw]

Maybe you're saying something than I think you're saying, but according to the site you cited, revenue per GDP is presently around 35%

That stat is fed+state+local. I was talking only fed - I could have been more clear. People rarely discuss their bright ideas for state-level taxation. If you look at federal revenue as a % of GDP throughout the past century or so (before then income taxes were negligible), we've never moved far from 19%, though wildly different taxation schemes. People change their behavior in response to taxation changes and the net result isn't much different. Federal revenue has taken a serious dip over the past 8 years or so, however, with very little changes to tax plan, because of the lack of stability you get when you focus on the top income tiers.

far more prosperous eras of American history.

It's easy to convince yourself otherwise, but this is a terrific, wonderful time if you compare what your money can buy in absolute terms. People lose track of that because what they really want is to do better than their neighbors, but this is an age of wonders, and cheap wonders at that.

Re:But

[nameer]

Huh? The debt-to-GDP ratio for the United States is right around 100%. So, closer to someone who makes $60,000 getting a mortgage at 2% for $60,000. Pretty sweet deal.

Re:But

[Gussington]

Because your analogy isn't numerically accurate. Proportional to $60,000 income, the federal debt would be $348,000. That's the sort of ratio that led to the 2008 collapse.

You haven't provided enough information to conclude either way. If I earn $60k and have a $348k mortgage, but my house is worth $500k, there is no problem.
Debt is not always bad.

Re:But

[Big Hairy Ian]

Surely Facebook is just for stalking ex girlfriends. Everything else is just for masturbating into a teenagers gym sock

Re:But

[Maritz]

I can identify. Paid pretty decently but a house is still years off.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is a computer blog, not a social network.

Know who gives 0 shits about Stephen Fry?

[Anonymous Coward]

The young. Well, maybe except that kid he married.

Re:Know who gives 0 shits about Stephen Fry?

[stealth_finger]

Is Stephen Fry a "Daft Twat", or is he more of a "Right Cunt" . . . ?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. He's the third fat slag.

Additional reading

[sinij]

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.

Re:Additional reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindof hard to take seriously when the blog has facebook and kindle "subscribe" options with links to his profiles.

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

Schneier is NOT a prominent security researcher. He's a crypto math guy who thinks that qualifies him as security researcher. He's not.

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

not that I disagree with his opinion, there' s no good from social networks that can't be solved at the gladiator battles down at the coliseum.

Re:Additional reading

[MartinG]

What in your view qualifies someone as a security researcher?

Re:Additional reading

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a surprisingly good description of what Bruce Schneier is. However, the security research community has no prominent names. We have hackers that are calling themselves researchers and people like Schneier.

At least he is pointing in the right direction.

Re:Additional reading

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Schneier is NOT a prominent security researcher.

What in your view qualifies someone as a security researcher?

"Kids today, and the computer security research they read! It's garbage! In my day, it was diffrerent. Babe Ruth, now, there was a real security researcher! And let me tell you, you can bet the Great Bambino never wore his pants down around his thighs, or tried to pass off mere cryptography theory as operational security best practices!"

Re:Additional reading

[sinij]

What about his work on Fortuna?

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

I'm still waiting...

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

exactly!

Re:Additional reading

[david_thornley]

Whatever his credentials, I learned a lot of things reading his blog, including new ways to think about security. Whether this marks him as useful or me as hopelessly naive is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Additional reading

[HornWumpus]

Duh, if their name becomes prominent it means they fucked up badly.

Prominent security researchers might have handles and live behind seven proxies.

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

great! but he's not a prominent researcher. he's not a liar, and he has education value, but he's not a researcher. his prominence is based on his self promotion.

Re:Additional reading

[Bing Tsher E]

Schneier is really more of a 'cryptography journalist' than a Crypto Researcher. He wrote an important book, when nobody else would write the book. I bought it at the time. Since then he's been mostly a pundit and continues to be a journalist and writer.

Cryptographers are mathematicians.

Re:Additional reading

[gweihir]

It takes common sense to stay away from the excesses of mainstream social media. People that are in possession of that rare commodity already noticed a while ago what Fry so rightfully points out and have left or severely restricted their exposure (if they ever signed up in the first place). The others will continue to get exploited as the actual product and will get manipulated to serve the commercial interests best. I would not mind, if I did not have to live in the same world with these people and suffer from their stupidity via "democracy".

Re:Additional reading

[gweihir]

You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, he is not a researcher into mathematical cryptography these days (and no, he is not a "crypto math" guy at all, he is a journalist by training), but security is a far, far wider field and he is doing research in that wider field.

Re:Additional reading

[gweihir]

The claim was "security researcher", not "crypto researcher". And no, there are applied cryptographic researchers as well and they are not usually mathematicians. Incidentally, you get theoretical CS folks in theoretical crypto research as well. Your world-view is a little more black-and-white than the actual thing is.

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

give an example of his research...

Re:Additional reading

[ole_timer]

that's what I thought - he has no original ideas and does no research, he just offers opinions.

Re: This time, before anyone asks who he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

He voiced Jar Jar?

Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

Social networks are what you make of them. I have not read his essay, but from OP alone it seems to me that there's a distinction to be made here, between "doing it right" and "doing it wrong".

Re:Social networks are a tool

[jma05]

To some extent, sure. But the medium is the message
As explored in Marshall McLuhan's The Medium Is the Massage

Re:Social networks are a tool

[gurps_npc]

I would argue that you are incorrect.

It's not the social part, but the NETWORK part.

There is minimal, if any benefit to the USER of networking your blog/web page with your email, games, music, online comments, and other social activities etc.

But the network itself gets huge advertisement based financial rewards for doing so.

This means that social networks by definition are an exchange of minor convenience (single login) for a major privacy invasion. As such, they are not and never have been what you make them.

They are and always will be a privacy surrender.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

I suppose I should have provided this context to begin with. I use Facebook. None of what Stephen talks about applies to me. I use Facebook to strictly keep in touch with close friends and family. I don't click on ads, I don't click on videos, I don't post pictures of my breakfast, lunch, dinner. I don't have my profile publicly available. I am extremely strict with whom is on my list of friends and what I share. Social media platforms are tools and they can easily be misused. Their misuse is the issue, not their existence.

Re: Social networks are a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything you type to your friends, you "share" with facebook and advertisers. Things like your thoughts, your opinions, your ideas, your desires, your beliefs, etc. Facts like your birthday, your financial state, your location, your health.

Knowledge is power, and facebook and advertising companies have a lot of power over people.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[pr0fessor]

Sorry the message I got from the summary was advertisers want you to use social media because buy more crap.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[thinkwaitfast]

Also discussed in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman.

Re: Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

Social platforms are far from being the only entity that do this, so to call them out on this merit is short-sighted. The reality is you cannot shield yourself completely from what you correctly identified, but you can take steps to limit what you share.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[AdamThor]

Social networks are a tool - Yep!
Social networks are what you make of them - Not exactly...

They are a tool alright, but not a tool for you! You are the product, not the client. Make of it what you want (you may be able to extract some utility for yourself), but that bit won't change.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[thinkwaitfast]

Their misuse is the issue, not their existence.

Couldn't the same thing be said about heroin?

Re:Social networks are a tool

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Social networks are a tool

And people who use social networks are tools.

The Universe really does balance itself!

Re:Social networks are a tool

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I use Facebook to strictly keep in touch with close friends and family.

And why can't email and/or instant messaging be used instead?

Re:Social networks are a tool

[jernejk]

LOL. You are still being data mined, at least by Facebook (and the government).

Just now I'm doing a showcase with facebook data... it's crazy what's in there, even if you "don't share".

Re:Social networks are a tool

[david_thornley]

For one thing, a lot of my friends and family are on Facebook, and I'm not going to communicate with them well by email or IM. For another, I'm bad at keeping up distance relationships like that, and I enjoy finding out about friends and family I otherwise would not keep up with.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[Tarmas]

I don't click on ads

In Soviet Russia, ads clicks on you!

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

I'm acutely aware of that. My point wasn't to say I am not being data mined, but by being mindful of the data I choose to share, I can curtail some of it. So what social platform can I migrate over if I want to stay in touch with my family and friends that live abroad?

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

Because those avenues are NOT data mined? Well, to give you a straight answer, it's because of what the other poster said. By not adopting the tools everyone else around you utilizes to communicate, you get left behind basically. So you do your best to control what you share, with the assumption that EVERYTHING you share is data mined.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

Except I don't use heroin to keep in touch with friends, and, unless you can provide a platform that is not subject to data mining, I see little choice. I have friends and family that live abroad. Platforms such as Facebook puts staying in touch at fingertips.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

I'm fine with that, and am mindful of what I publish. My point was there is such a thing as oversharing. You can minimize what is data mined by engaging the platform to a limited extent.

Re:Social networks are a tool

[fishb0ne]

Agreed. Keep in touch with friends and family as one lives abroad is much better done via pen, paper and snail mail.

I need to get off my ass and...

[SumDog]

I need to get off my ass and set up a set of GNU Social and Diaspora nodes and experiment with some of the distributed/federated social networking. I realize a lot of it is broken with many projects being abandoned or merged, but I feel like I should find what's out there that works and try to get people on other social networks I'm on to migrate. If I can get a subset of just a few people to actively use an alternative, I'd be encouraged to help develop for those platforms.

Unfortunately I have two other major OSS projects I'm working on plus full time work...plus I go out and do stuff and things and like my social life. Our currently walled gardened social networks are a problem; a big problem. Censorship on Twitter and the new Reddit features basically help create an echo chamber effect.

Re:I need to get off my ass and...

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:I need to get off my ass and...

[david_thornley]

Last I heard, Diaspora had some technical requirements that would make it difficult for a non-techie to install. Is it easier now?

Re:This time, before anyone asks who he is...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He's a cartoon.

Not with Natalie Portman, but with the chick with purple hair, big boobs, and one large eye.

Been there.

[DaveMikulec]

I think I'll stick with social media, less likely to get shot that way.

Re:Been there.

[Sir_Eptishous]

At least you're honest about it.

Re:Been there.

[Bing Tsher E]

I just noticed this afternoon that you can comment on articles at China's People's Daily English Language website. Unfortunately I can't register directly on the site, but can use my Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or Google accounts to log on.

I imagine the comments on the Opinion pieces at People's Daily are curated somewhat....

Re:Aahhh, I don't know, Logan's Run had lots of na

[Eunuchswear]

Twenty. No thirty. Read the book, forget the film.

("Make Room, Make Room" is a hell of a lot better than "Soylent Green", too).

Re:Oh look...

[alvinrod]

That does raise another reason to avoid social networks: the moralist busybodies looking for something to take offense to so they can feed their own inflated egos. Whether it's an annoying Jesus-freak relative or some hashtag slacktivist, neither are worth interacting with.

Re:Oh look...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've got nothing in particular against Stephen Fry, but - I don't think the "young" make up much of his audience in the first place.

Who is Stephen Fry?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not on twitter, he must not be important.

Re:Oh look...

[Eunuchswear]

I guess it means that Apple will soon be launching a Facebook killer and Fry is getting ready to shill that.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing on Slashdot is the effing pedants.

Not just social networks

[fustakrakich]

Try living without a credit card and you will be interrogated and detained every time you come back through customs. Absence of information is very suspicious. Obviously we are hiding something.

Re:Not just social networks

[cayenne8]

Try living without a credit card and you will be interrogated and detained every time you come back through customs.

Hmm. I've been through US customs before, and I've never been asked to present a credit card for anything...?

Re:Not just social networks

[WallyL]

May I ask how you make purchases online, assuming you do? I would love to know how you can operate on a normal basis without a credit card. Do you have monthly bills like eletric, water, natural gas? If so, how do you pay for them? I am interested in this no-CC living.

Re:Not just social networks

[vonart]

I don't know about OP, but most of the utilities I get service from do not take credit cards. Instead, you can either mail them a check/money order, pay via EFT online from your checking account, or pay in person at a place that does Western Union. If I recall, the only one that'll take a credit card is Comcast... though my natural gas place might as well. I know the electric company and the water department don't accept credit cards at all. For excise tax and at the DMV, I have to pay with cash, check, or money order (they accept credit cards for licenses at the DMV, but not for titles, registrations, or sales tax). My landlord doesn't take credit cards either - he requires a check or cash. For online purchases, one can rely on picking up gift cards at a local brick and mortar or go without. Personally, I have a debit card attached to a checking account for such things with a limited amount held inside, but it's perfectly reasonable to go without one. Indeed, I don't have any credit cards, just that one debit card. Yes, it can be a pain getting cash out for purchases, but I find I spend less if I'm using actual money.

Re:Not just social networks

[Pfhorrest]

How is using a gift card or debit card better than using a credit card? (For the privacy purposes this article is concerned about; obviously you can't spend yourself into a hole without credit, but you can use credit responsibly, too, at which point it's basically a debit card).

Re:Not just social networks

[thinkwaitfast]

I use a debit card and have never had a problem, even with car rentals.

Re:Not just social networks

[NotAPK]

I'm guessing it depends on how the flights were paid for.

Or whether you trip certain flags, and receive further questioning, and in the process credit cards are discussed.

It's basically unknowable what the rules are there is no way to seek any justification for why one individual is treated differently to another.

We've come a long way: 100 years ago people didn't even have what we would call passports!

Re:Not just social networks

[JustNiz]

I dont have a credit card, have travelled quite a lot, and have never had that problem.
I have a mortgage and have had car loans though, maybe something like that is enough.

Re:Not just social networks

[fustakrakich]

It's a profiling procedure. Apparently I "fit a description". Using only cash will do that to ya. It visibly pisses them off when I turn up clean every time. They insist "I don't have it [whatever "it" is] on me".

Re:Not just social networks

[fustakrakich]

I pay cash at the convenience store. I suppose I could buy a prepaid card. I just don't see the need yet. I have yet to buy anything online.

Re:Not just social networks

[fustakrakich]

Yeah well, being "unbanked" and debt free probably doesn't help me either.

Re:Not just social networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Gift cards are anonymous.

Re:Not just social networks

[Gussington]

Try living without a credit card and you will be interrogated and detained every time you come back through customs.

You're not selling this very well

Re:Not just social networks

[fustakrakich]

"Selling" what?

Re:Not just social networks

[vonart]

As the AC said, gift cards are (or rather, can be) anonymous. However, I was just answering the question of how one lives without a credit card. It's not all that hard, even without a debit card.

Re:Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU DO NOT KNOW THE BASICS OF SLAHSDOT FILTER AVOIDANCE. LESSON ONE: ALWAYS BE SMARTER THAN THE FILTER. THIS IS EASY, IT IS JUST A SCRIPT.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is a social network.

Social networks are what you make of them. I have not read his essay, ....

Social networks are just noise. It's just people all screaming in the net to have their uninformed two-bit opinions heard and their pathetic little lives recognized.

Social media is just like an addictive drug but worth less.

Re:The irony

[A10Mechanic]

The real irony is that if you go to his website and read the essay, there is a share button at the bottom to link the essay to FaceBook, Twitter, et al.

Re: The irony

[ShieldW0lf]

Why is it ironic? The people who have accounts are the target audience.

Re: The irony

[Bing Tsher E]

Apparently to have an opinion about privacy and social networks, you need to be some sort of Amish-like person who shuns said social networks. Probably you're relegated to passing out leaflets you wrote by hand on birch bark or something.

Re:The irony

[LihTox]

Social networks are just noise. It's just people all screaming in the net to have their uninformed two-bit opinions heard and their pathetic little lives recognized.

Sounds kind of like Slashdot.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[cayenne8]

Hmm...it took that author over 2,600 words to say it?

I've been saying it for years now with only 8 words:

"Yet another reason not to be on FaceBook"!!

;)

Smart Phones and Schools

[irrational_design]

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.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[ole_timer]

or an email address, or an ipad, etc. the teachers think it's cool to have homework require a smartphone instead of ideas. lazy.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[TodPunk]

For the sake of my education, could you explain to me how many people are in your country, how many of those people have high speed internet at home, how many have a phone number of their own (not shared by their household), and how many have an income?

I think you'll find an interesting disparity between the answers to these questions and your assumptions about what is "essential" to "modern life." Often times hype and trends do not equal necessity. Many people don't have a car, long thought to be required for getting a good job, or own a suit, or have a college degree, or any of the other things our silly media outlets proclaim to "know" are necessary from their bubble.

Just two weeks past I met a woman who did not have a debit card. She looked as happy as anyone else working at the company I had to write a check to. Perhaps you should go meet people like them and explain to them why their adult life is missing things essential to the happiness and prosperity you think they don't have.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[vux984]

This is assumed to such an extent that the high school teachers regularly incorporate their use into their lessons.

When we registered my daughter in highschool we had to tick off a box saying whether she had a laptop or tablet that would be provided for her to use at school. I think all of her classmates have something too. I think if we'd ticked the no box, the school has a small supply of tablets they give out as loaners.

A phone is not required. And I find it doubtful your daughter actually needs a *phone*.

It is astonishing to me that the teachers can't comprehend that a teenager might not have a smart phone.

Every school district is different. But in ours, it *would* be pretty unusual for a student not to have a device. And as I said, our school district has a small loaner supply to give those kids access, so that the internet, and basic document editing etc can be part of the curriculum.

It makes sense, the school library compared to the internet is a pitiful resource for research. And more importantly, that's just not HOW research is done anymore; so its not the skill they should be learning. (Don't get me wrong its a good skill to have, but they need to learn how to use the internet, and to critically evaluate the credibility of sources they find there more than they need to learn how to use a card catalog and the dewey decimal system.)

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[SuperKendall]

If you truly do not care about the education of your daughter, by all means provide her with the same learning materials as kids in the very poorest areas so as to replicate the dearth of technological education or direct access to knowledge the poorest of children enjoy.

Though I think YOU would be surprised at how many kids even in poor areas have smartphones...

A debt card is a very different thing than a smartphone; the debt card is a way or more quickly draining something from you, the smartphone a way to more quickly pump you up with MORE than you would have been able to have otherwise.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being a stupid father that makes his daughter not part of the group. Why not buy her a phone?

Your daughter seems to be becoming an expert in how to feel different than the rest of the group.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[tom229]

Wow... so people like you do exist... fascinating. That was a quicker decline into utter retardation than even the most pessimistic predicted.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[david_thornley]

Lots of people in my country have these things, which means that, to participate in everyday activities, people need some of them. It used to be that you'd find job listings in the newspaper, or by looking around at the companies, but now they're primarily on the Internet. It used to be that, if I wanted tickets to an event, I could go to a spot in my favorite department store and deal with a human. Currently, that human is gone and I'm expected to buy such tickets on the Net.

Many people don't have a car, sure, but that cuts off a lot of potential things they could do. (I lived without one for some time as an adult.) They may be fine with it, in which case that's great and they can save money by not having a car, but it's still limiting. In this metro area, it would seriously limit the number of jobs you could apply for.

If the woman you met had no debit card, fine. I rarely use mine. If she had no credit card or auto loan or mortgage, and hadn't had any of them ever, she'd be in for a hard time should she ever need credit for something.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[Hentes]

How is this different from the school requiring you to buy textbooks for your daughter? Technology is advancing, and the ways we teach kids should adapt to that.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a good thing. She'll learn independence and self-actualization. We already have plenty of sheep.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[fluffernutter]

My two kids don't have smart phones either, basically because they tend to lose things and I feel they should be responsible before they have them. We go through the same issues.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[fluffernutter]

- 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.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[mjtaylor24601]

7F21: Three Men And A Comic Book

Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad!
Homer: No!
Bart: Please Dad! (And so on...)
Homer: No!!! Now look son we all know that usually when you bug me like this I give in, so I'm not mad at you for trying. It shows you have been paying attention. But we all know I'm not going to give you 100 dollars! Now are you going to stop bugging me?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you?
Bart: No!
Homer: Are you? (And so on...)
Bart: OKAY!!

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[fluffernutter]

I was going to put the word 'usually' in there. Noted.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[Gussington]

It is astonishing to me that the teachers can't comprehend that a teenager might not have a smart phone.

Maybe time to look for another school? My kid's schools both have a no phones policy (ie if you are caught with a phone during class it gets confiscated and reported to your parents).

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[LM-Els]

Maybe you should stand up to those teachers?

I've dealt with similar things from school, although not as bad. No mandatory Facebook, but a school-website that shows all homework with a login and school email addresses (which can only be read via webmail, so no instant pinging all the time). Occasionally I did see emails from teachers coming in over the weekend (because I'm copied in via personal email when they want to be sure it is read in time), but I politely and firmly respond to them saying I will not allow my kids to do homework that's not given in advance. Both times I got an apology mail back that it was only a reminder and the kids should have already known about it. Then why the heck do you send such an email on Saturday night or Sunday?

I still do block access after bed time. In the form of leaving all electronics in the living room when you leave to go to bed. Certainly won't change that, even less so for silly school teachers who thing it's okay to give homework that wasn't in the schedule before 4pm. Just because the technology exists, doesn't mean it should be allowed to be abused.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[irrational_design]

How do you look for another public school? We live within the boundaries of a particular school, so that is where the kids go. Its not like any of the other public schools would be any different based on what my daughters friends, who attend those other schools, say.

Re:Smart Phones and Schools

[toddestan]

Back when I was in high school, cell phones were banned. Well, you could have one, but it stayed out of sight in your bag or locker and turned off during school hours (including passing times and lunch). This was back when cell phones were analog and very few kids had one anyway.

I can't imagine that having smart phones in schools would be encouraged. I can see the schools more or less giving up on telling kids they couldn't have them, mostly thanks to helicopter parents. But I can only imagine them being a huge distraction, plus all the other problems associated with unappropriated use of the internet and social media, cameras, and the general issues associated with kids having easy to lose or break expensive devices.

Re:Aahhh, I don't know, Logan's Run had lots of na

[cayenne8]

Twenty. No thirty. Read the book, forget the film.

Yep, read the book, it was MUCH better, but I believe the age you had to turn yourself in for "Sleep" was 21.

The crystal in your hand turned colors every 7 years, on your 21st Bday, "Lastday", it would blink. On last day, you got to do just about anything you wanted, but if you were late for "Sleep"...the Sandmen would come to get you.

And, the gun in the book was MUCH more interesting too...

I don't know who...

[Sir_Eptishous]

Stephen Fry is, but his analysis of "social" networks is on the mark.

When things like MySpace first came out, then FB, etc, and I started hearing from people, from institutions, from businesses, schools, everything, that I HAD to have an account on those networks, that struck me as wrong.

Now, ten plus years later, I feel that way even stronger than when FB and the rest first showed up.

When I started seeing access to things like Public Television/Radio stations, etc being FB only I knew something was very wrong.

Re:I don't know who...

[squiggleslash]

Fry? He's a comedian that rose to fame during the mid-1980s in Britain where he partnered with Hugh Laurie (more recently of "House" fame) and worked with Ben Elton and other comedians in the contemporary "Alternative Comedy" circuit, first coming to the public attention on "Saturday Live", a UK alt-com counter part to America's SNL. In addition to his (and Laurie's) show "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" he's famous for his roles in the Blackadder TV series.

In the 21st Century he's been less prominent. He's bi-polar, and unfortunately his mental illness has probably contributed to some unfortunate clashes on social media, including some - ill advised and somewhat ironic considering his alt-com origins - complaints about "political correctness" including an attack on rape victims which he's since walked back.

I think he's a decent guy, but not one that's comfortable with the way media and "what it means to be a celebrity" works in 2016.

Re:I don't know who...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find some Jeeves and Wooster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098833/) and watch it.

Re:I don't know who...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fry is much, much more than a comedian.

Since this is /., it is worth revealing that he was a personal friend of Douglas Adams, who claim to be the first and second people in Europe to get hold of Apple Macs. He's also a fellow technophile who reads and understands everything written on this site.

He is very likely the most accomplished polymath in the world today.

Re:The man has a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this has already happened to me several times:

1: A picture of me on Facebook back in 2009 prompted questions at a job interview.
2: I was in a humidor several years ago, just looking around. Friend of mine took a picture of me. A week later, my insurance company called, demanded a physical with bloodwork, or else I had to pay smoker's rates.
3: A USENET post I did to sci.crypt back in 1991 was brought up at another job interview. Thankfully even then, I made sure to be careful what I wrote.
4: I was asked about a post in comp.sys.mac.advocacy back in 1992.
5: I was asked if I were a lawless hippie because I posted often to the cypherpunks list back in 1994.

The Net has a long memory.

a 2,600-word essay in 2016?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone wrote a 2,600-word essay in 2016 and expects people to read it? can't he do an infographic?

Stephen Fry == Awesomeness

[kheldan]

If there's any type of person you should listen to, it's this man.

Common Sense

[tom229]

This should be common sense to anyone over the age of 20. Social media does not help you, at least not how it's currently designed. To have one or two American, for-profit, companies have complete power and control over the entire worlds digital social existence is staggeringly irresponsible. I don't think Orwell could even have dreamt up a more efficient tool for control, manipulation, and corruption.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

For one, you should be able to extract all of your data, permanently delete it from FB, and import it to another social network of your choosing. Data should be free to move to/from between social networks.

Re:Common Sense

[Sir_Eptishous]

For one, you should be able to extract all of your data, permanently delete it from FB, and import it to another social network of your choosing. Data should be free to move to/from between social networks.

That is half the reason I don't join.
They own everything.

Re:Common Sense

[tom229]

I'm not anti-American. I simply don't think it's a good idea for other countries citizens to put so much trust in American companies. By virtue of not being American you give up any civil protections the government might award their own citizens. This is simply the way countries work.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[LWATCDR]

And yet I see no reason to not be on facebook after reading it.
I do not know what the problem is. My political views have not been changed by Facebook. I admit it makes me disappointed at the views of some of my friends. Advertisers? Yea look at my feed and you will see I like computers and motorcycles. I really do not mind seeing ads for those things.
HR? Yea I am an old married guy that goes to dinner with my wife.
What do I get out of it? I get to see pictures of my friends kids and I get to keep in touch with friends that live far away from me.
I get on Facebook maybe once or twice a week and post a lot less than that since my life is go to work and go home most of the time.

Re:Noise and Crap Opinions

[thinkwaitfast]

alternative solutions for a parent to share pictures

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

Re:Oh look...

[guises]

He's best known right now for hosting a quiz show called QI. It's currently running, has been running for more than ten years now, and is pretty popular among younger people. If you're thinking of his recognition among older audiences it's likely for his acting career, but QI is where the bulk of people see him nowadays.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[pianophile]

The worst thing... is the effing pedants.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Noise and Crap Opinions

[DuckDodgers]

There is tons of free blog hosting software available. Just do a web search for "free blog sites".

The thing Fry decries is the nature of connections and communication and advertising in the mainstream social networks. Instead of making useful statements in paragraph form, we make short assertions that are mostly meaningless and then waste hours checking statuses, responding to two sentence comments on our two sentence comments, and arguing over the latest Star Wars movie or Hillary Clinton or similar inane things. (That's not to say that intelligent discussion about Hillary Clinton is impossible. It's possible - but exceedingly rare on social networks.)

It's high speed high school cliques plus advertising, which if they thought about it carefully only shallow fools would intentionally seek out.

Re:Proud and hidden?

[DuckDodgers]

You don't have to hide. Fry himself is posting his statement on a public blog.

But blogs lend themselves to essays, ideas, and reflection. Social networks lend themselves to the kind of quick, pointless interactions you get with high school cliques, but at an even faster pace with added advertising. "We've taken everything that was bad about some of your social interactions at age 15, and figured out how to make it worse, and convinced you that it's incredibly desirable."

I don't hide anything. But I don't post it to social networks either.

Re:This time, before anyone asks who he is...

[Slick_W1lly]

I recently revisited the 'Jeeves and Wooster' series with my wife (who is not English) after exhorting its brilliant'ness.

Turns out that my memory is rosy, and it's actually kinda dull and crap. I was disappointed in myself. Blackadder on the other hand, stands the test of time (and memory!)

Re:The man has a point

[jafiwam]

Actually, this has already happened to me several times:

1: A picture of me on Facebook back in 2009 prompted questions at a job interview. 2: I was in a humidor several years ago, just looking around. Friend of mine took a picture of me. A week later, my insurance company called, demanded a physical with bloodwork, or else I had to pay smoker's rates. 3: A USENET post I did to sci.crypt back in 1991 was brought up at another job interview. Thankfully even then, I made sure to be careful what I wrote. 4: I was asked about a post in comp.sys.mac.advocacy back in 1992. 5: I was asked if I were a lawless hippie because I posted often to the cypherpunks list back in 1994.

The Net has a long memory.

Reason #1 not to use your real name if your name isn't a very common one.

Or to use Google+

Re:Fry needs to fuck off

[Slick_W1lly]

I also care!

As an ex-pat Brit, I caught a few episodes on Dave a year or so back and I find it *Actually* Quite Interesting!

There's factoids and funny bits all through it - you can't find anything like it on 'merikan television (or at least I can't with my cable line-up).

Full Disclosure: I liked Blackadder, that Laywer program he came out with, Jeeves and Wooster (when it came out, less so now), Peters Friends and that Anonymous film he did.. :)

Not needed

[nospam007]

They began leaving when peepaw and meemaw befriended them years ago,

Bad data

[s.petry]

Many young people are not buying houses, and many are not able to afford rent on their own. The amount of adults living with parents today has skyrocketed from 30 years ago. The amount of renters and shared rent agreements has also skyrocketed in that same time.

College loans of 35K are certainly not high, but if you don't make enough money to live on you are going to pay the minimums.

Re:Bad data

[MitchDev]

Well, getting a degree in something useful instead of "Liberal Arts" or "Basketweaving" is a good start to helping your financial security

Re:Bad data

[KGIII]

> The amount of adults living with parents today has skyrocketed from 30 years ago.

I thought about this and actually came back to respond to this. It seems to me that *might* be just you misinterpreting the data. It could be willful but it might not be and I'll give you the benefit of doubt. That and, well, I can only explain part of this.

The period of time where young people struck out alone, without family, got married, purchased a home, had a white picket fence, and 2.5 children was actually more or less an anomaly. Historically, children have often remained living with their parents or extending the property a little to live very close. They've often lived with their parents, even staying in the same house after getting married and having children of their own. This is also fairly common across the globe.

In human history, the period where that was the norm is actually pretty short - even if you limit it to modern history. There was some uniquely American aspects to the commonality of that - where land was still plentiful and/or inexpensive.

I'd agree that such was a sign of affluence, on the part of the individual and of the nation as a whole, and that we're seemingly less so affluent today. But, even that could be argued. I don't know that we're really less affluent so much as we've greater availability of goods and services and now consider those services necessities or priorities.

An example is that you might say that your parents had greater spending power even though they made less money than you do. That's something we read here often. Yet, your parents weren't paying for four smart phones and their service plans, internet, computers for every home, cars with all the gadgets, televisions in every room, and $21 pitchers of craft beer. They were paying for a house with piss-poor R value, inefficient appliances that broke down often, cars with drum brakes and carburetors - and no airbags, infotainment center, GPS, anti-brakes, stability and traction control, etc...

Health care? They were paying for a dentist when they needed one, not for whitening, probably not braces, and they might also have been the same person who cut their hair. They weren't paying for an MRI, CT Scan, and were getting irradiated by the faulty x-ray equipment and even getting irradiated when they went to try on new shoes! They didn't even have much in the way of physical therapy, mental health care meant putting Aunt Sally in the attic and feeding her twice a day. If she was a true danger then she was a ward of the State. Taxes? They weren't paying for schools full of computers, one for each of the students to take home, safe buses, qualified bus drivers, gymnasiums, science labs with the modern equipment, cops with special cars, radar guns, less than lethal weapons, extra training in compassionate care (so that one made me chuckle too), stab proof jackets and bullet resistant vests. They got a magnetic light that plugged into the cigarette lighter, bias-ply tires, drum brakes, and a 440 CID engine that only put out 325 horsepower.

The list goes on...

I'm not really sure how far the list goes or even that the list has as much importance that it might have or as little importance as it might have but it's absolutely a metric that nobody ever wants to take into account. In the scope of things, we did pretty good for a little while but that was actually an exception to the rule and not the norm. Different societies do this at different times and it seems to be relatively cyclic in nature. Go back to that time and have a look at how poorly they were doing in Europe for a huge part of that time, for example. Shit, Spain was a fascist dictatorship until, what, 1978? They were cowering in fear of the USSR until the late 1980s. Living with their parents wasn't just expected in some areas but a necessity. That really wasn't that long ago. Now it is their turn to be a bit wealthier than they're used to and that seems to quickly be coming to an end. (Let us hope they don't go Full Europe and bomb

Re:Bad data

[s.petry]

History is great for a whole lot of things, but if you are going to go back into history and claim that people leaving homes younger is a newer anomaly and not also explain that student loans are a similar anomaly (and more recent) you are simply trying to bullshit people.

While I might be interpreting your post incorrectly, I perceive that you are attempting to look intellectually superior. And failed.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[cayenne8]

HR? Yea I am an old married guy that goes to dinner with my wife.

It isn't always just what YOU do on FB...but your associations.

You have friends, who have friends who have friends..etc.

Who knows what 2 or more generations down on the friends associations might have people doing?

They might not be quite as vanilla as you in lifestyle, behavior, criminal records, watch lists...as you are.

Stuff does matter like that on security investigations for jobs with clearances and the like.

And frankly, I like to keep as much info as possible (that I can control) out of govt and business' databases. The importance of "not being seen" so to speak.

And with all the recent stories about the Three Letter Agencies (TLA) building huge citizen profiles by mining social media looking for the bad guys...well, I'd just as soon not be on that list, or at least not help them any with my info....

If you are just tuning in...

[radarskiy]

Stephen Fry has *always* been a pompous jackass. For example, the entire premise of QI is "Stephen Fry gets to demonstrate how much smarter he is than you".

He is quite entertaining, but that does not mean he is not also a jerk.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[Spudboy2003]

You are one of the sheep. Please disregard that you ever read this.

Re: This time, before anyone asks who he is...

[BellyJelly]

Particularly series 2 of Blackadder, possibly the best thing ever in terms of comedy writing and acting.....

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[LWATCDR]

And I should take someone that calls people names like a 12 year old seriously?
It is simple. Keep your private life private. Being a sheep means that one follows the herd. That is one thing that I do not do. I have chosen a lifestyle for myself that is actually rare today. I don't drink or do drugs at all. I am married to my wife and we are both faithful. I get my news from VOA and NPR and do not support Trump, Clinton, Sanders, or Cruz for president. I will vote for Clinton over Trump if it comes to that because Trump is just evil.
You are a bigot because you have decided that my lifestyle has less value than yours but my lifestyle is the one I have chosen. If you want to get off social media be my guest BTW Slashdot is social media.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[MitchDev]

Yep.

Why not use it at all? Just use it reasonably and don't post every single thing you do every second of every day....

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[KGIII]

Slashdot is very much a social networking site. It has user submitted content. It has friends, foes, and journals. It has public lists of who your friends are and shows other friends/foes related to them - in their social network. There's a poorly enabled mechanism for private communication as well as the ability to post in each other's journals.

Slashdot is not only a social networking site but it was among the first social networking sites that gained popularity. I've even met numerous people, in real life, from this very site - including just last New Years.

et tu, internet?

[argStyopa]

Is it ironic or sad that he announced this by posting to his website?

Shouldn't he have just sent this in a letter to everyone he knew?

Re:et tu, internet?

[Pfhorrest]

Websites and social networks are not the same thing.

Well, in some sense they are -- there's not really anything a social network provides the user that a private website wouldn't -- but in the same sense that your private bedroom and a cot in a shelter are both "the same thing".

Re:Fry needs to fuck off

[stealth_finger]

It's not that QI is shit, it is actually quite interesting. And he was awesome in Blackadder. It's just his recent success has really gone to his head and he's just become a smug twat.

Re:Noise and Crap Opinions

[fluffernutter]

These people have not offered an alternative solutions for a parent to share pictures of her children with those who would be interested, such as close friends and family.

They probably think that everyone already knows about email. I suggest you also familiarize yourself with the technology. Most celphones also have something called SMS messaging that can transfer images.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[KGIII]

> The importance of "not being seen" so to speak.

I hate to say it but I think it's fast approaching the time where those who make the effort, those who consider the importance of not being seen, actually start to stand out more because of their lack of presence and activities.

I'm not in a position where I particularly give a shit about it. However, I could see it being problematic, down the road, if you appear to be a recluse. Surely, you must be a deviant or hiding something! (I'm guessing that's what people will think.) It is seemingly more and more abnormal for people to not have a web presence of some type, that's identifiable by name.

It's nice to just be able to say, "Screw off." I'm not so sure that most can do that. I read stories about people who claim that they've been turned down for jobs for lack of a social media presence but so far nobody has actually convinced me that this is true. They've not given me any reason to think they're using it as anything other than a crutch to blame their not getting hired. It's not like it's a protected class but none of them have indicated that they were told, directly, that they were not getting the job due to a lack of social media presence. (I'm not big on accepting things without some evidence.)

At some point, the question is going to (likely) be for some people; "Do I put up a bit of fake/light content to at least appear to be active in social media and at least try to maintain some control over what data then gets added?" Your point about the extended network, however invalid it should be, is also very valid. I imagine that we're all within one or two people from knowing some pretty poorly behaved people. Hell, some of us might even *be* the poorly behaved person. I've seen a few people here identify as felons and I'm a recovering drug addict and alcoholic.

You know...

That does make me think... If you didn't like someone then it'd be easy to create a fake social media account for some particularly bad person (though not one too famous) and then insert yourself into a number of their friends lists on multiple sites and through multiple ways - enough to make it appear that there's a connection even though there is none and there may be no such person. Slashdot, for example, enables me to add you to my friends list and there's jack shit you can do about that.

As an aside, and a petty aside at that, I consider it a badge of honor when someone adds me to their foes list for what they felt was a meaningful reason. I can usually tell which post(s) it was that I'll have made that encouraged them to do so. I'm often quite proud of holding those views and I'm quite comfortable holding those views up to scrutiny. If they're unable to find flaws and have to resort to, "Well then I just don't like you!" Then it means I'm on the right track.

I'm not exceptional, by any means, but I am one of those people who holds their views up to inspection and is willing to change their mind when they're presented with new information. I'll even *gasp* admit when I'm mistaken but I'll also so that I'm sorry if I am sorry. So yes, yes it *does* strike me as a badge of honor when I click that notification and see someone's added me to their foe list. I'm not sure what I'm winning but I'm winning something! Oddly, quite a few of 'em end up removing me from their foes list. That was really strange when I first saw that happen but it has happened quite a few times. Sometimes I wonder if they're just not able to understand what I write? I'm too verbose and not very articulate. It's actually something I sort of work on.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[GeekWithAKnife]

It's just so sad that this fancy forum or the webby iteration of advertisement voyeurism AKA Facebook is being "discovered".

Once upon a time if you used a computer you were a nerd. IRC chat? social reclusive nerd!, BBS? sad lonely geek! -what was missing was a fancy GUI! and some pictures!! Oh how the monkeys like to look. Look, I am a monkey but I have a can and a stick and bang and bang so loud. ENVY ME.

Now it's cool. Now it's weird if you don't have a computer, if you're not on Facebook. What are you not social? it's not for nerds it's a "social network" all the cool kids are doing it. (actually did it and moved on years ago but whatever)

Now all those trips to must have lots of photos. After all if you don't have photos it's like your trip didn't happen right? don't savour the moment, ask a passer-by to picture it so you can upload them so everyone can see.
You have a FB account so find reasons why your life is interesting . After all everyone else's life seems so interesting right? keeping up with the selfies, the poses, the likes and comments of . Like some open conduit to soul searching for lost children or the crazed loony preachers that would get kicked and banned out of an IRC channel.

Once I see those friends from far far away I'll enjoy their photos so much more. If they are really special they can share those with me, personally.

Broadcasting your pictures to your tens of really good, close, trusted friends is not really personal. It's not really friendship. In fact most people know this but they do it anyhow. Why? because now they too have a stick and a can and they can bang bang bang so loud. Woohoo what fun!

If people want to see photos of my kids they'll show interest or ask. You know, because they care.

Outside of Facebook I only have a handful of close friends. Wait, let me rephrase that, outside of Facebook I have real friends. People I meet, people I speak with. People I trust. The relationship is more meaningful because it is more involved, it requires more effort and as such would be of real social value when one person is invested in your well being and you are invested in theirs. Clicking "like" a million times cannot emulate or replace that.

This is not a criticism of you sir but a criticism of Facebook alleged social nature specifically and Facebook in general. You do seem to be doing just find on Facebook. Good. I am happy for you.

I've decided to delete my Facebook account quite some time ago. I am missing a lot of context on those important office conversations about oh did you see it? saw what he said? the photos of her holiday? his mom? the car?

You can say I am bitter and alone etc and you may be right but such people are on Facebook and they look like they are having the best time, total legends.

Socially bitter, alone and old school,

GeekWithAKnife

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[KGIII]

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.

He's right

[WillAffleckUW]

All of the current personal networks are dystopian, designed to monetize personal information about you, and sell it to the highest bidder, while pretending to be your bestest bud and on your side.

That's why I keep my original DARPA accounts.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[footNipple]

You have a job??

Pandora's box

[stinky wizzleteats]

Has been opened. I have friends all over the world whom I would never have met were it not for social media. I met my wife in Second Life, and at the time, we lived 3000 miles apart. Humans are connecting creatures, and I think it's too late to reverse the social evolution toward using technology to connect. Even if you were to personally decide to only connect with people you can physically meet, whom would you talk to? Everyone else has their head buried in their smart phones. The very act of attempting to interrupt their attention automatically disqualifies you as someone worthy of socialization. I'm sure Stephen Fry could reasonably expect to be able to strike up a conversation with a stranger on a train. You and I cannot.

A more practical solution is for people to begin to take their privacy seriously and go to a little extra effort to secure it. This has already begun, to a limited extent and with younger people. My kids and their friends no longer use services like facebook to communicate, because they know how easy it is for parents and principals to access the information. We need to choose social media services that strike a different balance on the issues of cost and privacy, even and especially if that involves paying for them directly.

Re: No mor Frist Psots

[dugancent]

Original thought? Someone who calls others "sheep" is hardly original.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[reboot246]

I hope somebody has made a backup of those photos they uploaded to facebook. Facebook squashes the hell out of photos. I see it all the time. The parent takes a photo with their cellphone (usually set on the lowest resolution possible to save space) and uploads it to facebook, and then they delete the photo from the phone! What they're left with is a photo on facebook that is horrible for anything but viewing on a cellphone or tablet screen. You can't really print them or view them on a big flatscreen television. They're just crap.

For your kids photos you should use a REAL camera and keep full-sized backups stored somewhere that's safe. Facebook is not an acceptable backup solution.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I am married to my wife and we are both faithful.

Please note that I never doubted that you weren't married to someone else's wife.

Hell is Still Other People

[Richard Kirk]

Don't know His Fryness? You miss out: a good man, even outside his more well-known TV comedy roles. Attracts a lot of the nastier sort of internet trolls who want to make him attempt suicide again.

Much of the internet is a nasty place, and I would not want to live in it full-time. A trolling of some innocent can make me incoherent. A nasty piece of porn can put me off humanity altogether; if they are having fun, why does no-one ever smile? Gaze into 4chan and beyond, and see Hell. But if you totally unplug, you kill the messenger; you remove your levening presence, and leave the mob to their excess. The excess is not the fault of the internet: a lot of humanity could do with improvement, and it is always been easier to destroy than to build. Unplugged you can still read the Daily Mail, but I think you (the public) have more sense. Plugged you can do the same. Keep it all at arm's length. Visit the internet. Re-visit the places you like. Have a look at something new, perhaps something edgy and dangerous, but don't let it bring you down to it's level.

Has El Fry aimed his essay beyond his target? He hasn't actually unplugged by his own admission. Maybe it is easier and more rousing to exhort us to some ideal of total abstinence, but those of us who fall short of this will probably be happier.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[Gussington]

What do I get out of it? I get to see pictures of my friends kids

Sorry is that a pro or con? Pictures of kids and food was one of the main reasons I gave up on it. Signal to Noise ratio got way to low.

Re: No mor Frist Psots

[DThorne]

Naw, it's a social network comprised of snarky, sarcastic, technically minded people locked in an eternal battle striving to be the most innately intelligent, educated, dismissive and first-past-the-post user. Lately it's been feeling like an MMO, and what a grind. Instead of "kill 10 rats" it's "humiliate 2 noobs".
In fact, while I consider Fry's comments somewhat true but ultimately pointless(logic can no more stop online membership than screaming" bread and circuses!" in front of a sports stadium), Slashdot is arguably the worse example of the sort of pointless chest thumping communities. It's like a cross between Mensa and American Gladiators.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[kmoser]

Slashdot is a computer blog, not a social network.

Semantics.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[pnutjam]

I actually upmod my foe's, I want to see what people are talking about.

Re:No mor Frist Psots

[LWATCDR]

"You know... It might be worth having a meaningful discussion about legislating that non-criminal political activity is a protected class."
In most places it is but that can get into a some odd corner cases.

1. What about a teacher that wants to legalize sexual relations between adults and minors? They have never been convicted of any crime and may just want the change because they believe it is good change but have never actually had sex with a child. Should their job be protected? Would you want them teaching your child?
2. Someone that is a member of the KKK or is a neonazi and a police officer? If you were a minority would you feel safe?
Should those people have their jobs protected?
The Supreme court did come down with this ruling. http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

But what about someone that works for a company and then public states that the company is terrible?