What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".
And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).
Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work toward are any different.
Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).
I guess that's the next step, though. The only avenue allowed to people who dissent these days is "peaceful protest" and even then you tend to need to petition the government for a permit to do so. And even then, what possibly be more impotent than a peaceful protest? Next step would probably be to somehow associate protesting with "radical dissent" and who are therefore a threat to the government and freedom and are therefore domestic terrorists yadda yadda yadda.
Alive and well, but you can't be blind to how obvious the efforts are by the government to slowly identify "libertarian" with things like "fringe" and "terrorist". It's still a stretch, today, but for how long? After all, who dissents with the direction of our current government more than a libertarian?
Hell, Napolitano has been making comments just recently that while taken for being directed at lunatics who bunker down in crazy fringe camps in the middle of the mountains, stockpiling guns and writing manifestos would also seem to greatly apply to most libertarians. Associating our mere dissent and dissatisfaction (not even to mention political activities) as suspect.
How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).
If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.
Of course, the people they appear to be DDoSing also have a history of DoSing "freedom", by denying people access to their funds, services to transact funds, their domain names (a pretty effective DoS). Not saying that mimicking bad actions makes a right action, but they're hardly targeting anyone with clean hands, it appears.
Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.
Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.
Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.
You're not prescribing yourself drugs or performing self-surgery, so what's the point of involving a doctor in the process, other than bolstering the medical industry with unnecessary additional bills? I doubt your average family physician knows much more about genetics - especially on any level that would truly be valuable in evaluating a genetic test - than your average slashdotter.
Thank god they're doing this, because I'm just too damn stupid to recognize obvious product placement and false endorsement when I see it. At least I know this email I got from a Nigerian ambassador is real!
Lobsters, "crawdads", and shrimp are disgusting. People will eat just about anything if you convince them that it's something only to be enjoyed by the upper crust (how else does one explain caviar?).
If you want to pepper your own diet with crickets roaches, go for it. Just don't suggest that it's somehow going to magically replace the diet about a billion people already currently have any more than you expect people to replace their current cow/pig/whatever diet with dog (which some people would say having an aversion to eating makes them an emotional, ignorant, bigot and I'm okay with that label in that case).
This is just a group of scientists looking to make a breakthrough and jumpstart a new industry - no different than if some jackass pointed out how sustainable seaweed is and that we should all transition to a seaweed diet. Perhaps what people see as some over-reaction to the concept is actually my contempt for the modern trend of embracing ridiculous new dietary fads, because it somehow makes people better than others and worldly. Look, I'm a big fan of the idea of just having a pill that you swallow twice a day that takes care of everything for you. I'm also a big fan of the idea that we'll eventually just be able to generate "meat" of any type right out of thin air by re-composing atoms all replicator-like. In fact, that's likely to happen long before you find the majority of the population in America, Canada, the UK, etc sitting down for a delicious nightly plate of bugs.
(I definitely won't argue that beetles would be any worse than the majority of the fast food crap people already eat, of course.)
Yes, I'm also an ignorant bigot, because I disregard replacing the westernized diet with a breatharian, fruitarian, or raw-food diet. I didn't say that nobody eats insects. I just said that it's fucking stupid to suggest that people are going to opt for replacing meat with insects - outside of the few nutjobs who currently do it, because it's now trendier than bragging about being a tofu-only-eater.
Our ancestors also flung their own shit around for much longer than we've been primarily hairless. That doesn't mean doing so today isn't gross or that replacing handshaking with it is realistic.
What I should have said if I gave a fuck about appealing to the Slashdot masses is "oh, golly, this is such a delightful idea! I haven't been this excited since the Postal Service's last single!".
But, hey, if you're overly eager to help a bunch of scientists promote their idiotic idea as some new viable commercial industry, I couldn't fucking care less. I'm going to go have a real steak, now.
Religion is quite widespread, too. That doesn't mean I'm going to drop to my knees and start praying. Some motherfuckers eat dog, for that matter. Doesn't mean there is somehow a justification for replacing my diet with Fido.
Also, there is no shortage of food. There might be a sustainability problem in some parts of the world, but for the most part the majority of land (especially in America) are completely empty and undeveloped. For fuck's sake, we pay people not to grow food, in this country.
If you're in some third-world nation with the option of starting an insect food economy on one hand or starving and dying of malnutrition on the other hand, then go for it. But let's not act like this dippy bullshit is going to replace meat for most of modern (especially western) civilizations. People are more likely to say "fuck that!" and go vegetarian, before they'll start eating insects.
And no, "you all eat insects every day" doesn't contribute to further justification whatsoever. Nobody is a hypocrite for eating food that allows a minimal amount of rat hairs or insect parts per hundreds or thousands, yet showing distaste at the idea of eating flat out insect based food.
If green house gases produced by *man* are really so significant, let's attack the real sources that have viable alternatives already and do much more damage -- like combustion engine automobiles, lawnmowers, airplanes, and industrial waste.
Anyway, there's always a group of jackasses promoting absurd diets with any number of justifications. One day it's all-tofu and the next it's a breatharian diet. Then it's an insect diet.
Hey, I propose we all eat something disgusting and horrifying, because it's "more sustainable"! (Yes, I know tribes in the middle of nowhere that dance around a fire with their boobies flapping in the breeze all day that have never seen an 'outsider' survive entirely on grub worms or whatever -- I don't care).
I have an idea. How about we attack pollution spewing gas-guzzlers, teh trend of every home owner having a "grass" lawn (very bad on the environment), and corporations dumping waste illegally before we start resorting to eating fucking giant god damn bugs. Also, what's with those giant plastic cups full of piss in the photo? Is that another movement they're proposing? Yum. Giant freaky bugs and cups of urine. The future sounds awesome.
I think any red-blooded male can confirm that this is obvious common knowledge. They keep maturing earlier and earlier. Hell, have you seen them lately? You think they're all 18 or even 22 millennia until that awkward moment when you make your move and find out they're really only 15 millenia. I say it's the chemicals they're subjected to in the modern cosmos.
This has nothing to do with whether a woman crying is a turn-off (yes, white-knights, we all know crying girls make you so so so so sad). This has to do with a vial of tear-juice impacting your judgement in how attractive women are. I guess this will be completely relevant when women start literally crying buckets. Until then, when do you actually come in contact with enough tears at one time that it could possibly effect you? I'm sure a vial full of ear-wax shoved right under my nose would repulse me, too, and the last thing I'd be thinking about is sex.
So add some amount of penalty to it. Or community service. Serving time in prison -- especially dozens of years -- is just a fucking idiotic handout to the prison industry. It's not like he used violence or a weapon. Save the prison space for people that are an actual harm to you and me. At least in the long term. A few months in prison should be enough to deter just about anyone from anything, unless they're the habitual offender type (in which case they've probably already spent more time in prison than out). Sticking a guy like this in prison for the rest of his natural life for a crime of this nature is just irrational.
I'm not sure I agree with a prison sentence, if he's agreeing and able to pay the amount back. No need to further feed the prison industry with non-violent criminals. If he receives anything even approaching a significant portion of the 32 years, it would be a travesty. Plenty of people have done far more horrible things and paid far less for those crimes. Crimes which were not merely about some cash. I would hate to think that we think it's okay to essentially take the rest of a man's life for something like this. We just went through several years of far worse white collar criminals getting away with far worse (and covered by the tax payers, even!) in this country.
The biggest problem with social networking is that it exposes more about people than you ever needed to know. It's easy to get by day to day with a lot of people that you have a good standing with and maybe even socialize with and spend time with. A large part of that is because you aren't subjected to the views and beliefs and personal drama and endless random fucking thoughts of each and every person you come across every day. There is a very tight circle of people around you who you know the most about and as that circle widens, the amount of information you know about them narrows. It's that fog-of-distance that allows you to have perfectly decent interactions with the majority of people.
I have seen so many stupid or dramatic things come out of so many people's mouths on places like facebook that completely obliterated how I regarded them. People I never needed to know those things about and could have otherwise thought well of. I don't see that it's much different than having a nice dinner where you invite some friends -- a few close and some not so much -- and everyone has the common sense not to start up a big argument about religion or politics. You and I can get along just dandy, but maybe not so much when I wake up every single morning to see yet more "birther" conspiracy bullshit from you about the president clogging up my "friend news feed" or your endless passive-aggressive comments about your shitty relationships.
There's a huge supply of people who haven't participated yet, but of those who have, many are not looking for the "next hot new competitor" to jump to as much as they're simply opting out of the whole social networking bullshit. It's just a matter of time before the tide turns and even more people wake the fuck up, look at their phone, and say "why in the hell do I need to announce my geographical location to five hundred "friends", every time I go to a bar or hit the 7-11?". They'll grow up, put it down, and move on.
At some point, I think all social networking bullshit will inevitably be reduced to about 10% of what it currently is.
People will finally grasp what the rest of us grasped ages ago. That is, I have nothing worth saying that hundreds or thousands of people need to know about and none of them have anything worth saying that I give a damn about. We're all just a bunch of circle-jerking morons so wrapped up in ourselves and the trivial reciprocation (to ensure that those in our circle will continue to care about us, too). Eventually people will pull their heads out of their own asses and move on.
They'll return to the way things should be done. If you have something important to say and there are people in your life that are important enough to tell it to, you email them or call them. You have a direct dialogue with them, rather than this self-absorbed mass-broadcasting of everything, where those who are on the other end are merely absorbers of your greatness. And they'll contact you directly when they have something to talk about, too. Everything else doesn't need to be shared and you can have actual individual relationships and discussions with people.
It's the same way we went through the whole web thing. The first time you discovered the web, you probably spent endless hours doing random things, just because it was new and amazing. Fifteen years later, you recognize that the web is a vast wasteland of shit and you only utilize it and things on it when you have a specific objective. Random surfing is largely a thing of the past.
It also reminds me of the AOL days (during the time, I was an engineer at Netscape) in that "everyone" was amazed by it as a consumer or an investor, but everyone I knew saw it as an obsolete toy for people that hadn't yet grown out of it. And people eventually did. Just like there are countless rational people who step back and shake their heads at Facebook and the never-ending self-important social-networking habits of people . . . which we recognize as doomed to become obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".
And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).
Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work toward are any different.
Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).
I guess that's the next step, though. The only avenue allowed to people who dissent these days is "peaceful protest" and even then you tend to need to petition the government for a permit to do so. And even then, what possibly be more impotent than a peaceful protest? Next step would probably be to somehow associate protesting with "radical dissent" and who are therefore a threat to the government and freedom and are therefore domestic terrorists yadda yadda yadda.
Alive and well, but you can't be blind to how obvious the efforts are by the government to slowly identify "libertarian" with things like "fringe" and "terrorist". It's still a stretch, today, but for how long? After all, who dissents with the direction of our current government more than a libertarian?
Hell, Napolitano has been making comments just recently that while taken for being directed at lunatics who bunker down in crazy fringe camps in the middle of the mountains, stockpiling guns and writing manifestos would also seem to greatly apply to most libertarians. Associating our mere dissent and dissatisfaction (not even to mention political activities) as suspect.
How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).
If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.
Of course, the people they appear to be DDoSing also have a history of DoSing "freedom", by denying people access to their funds, services to transact funds, their domain names (a pretty effective DoS). Not saying that mimicking bad actions makes a right action, but they're hardly targeting anyone with clean hands, it appears.
Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.
Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.
Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.
You're not prescribing yourself drugs or performing self-surgery, so what's the point of involving a doctor in the process, other than bolstering the medical industry with unnecessary additional bills? I doubt your average family physician knows much more about genetics - especially on any level that would truly be valuable in evaluating a genetic test - than your average slashdotter.
Thank god they're doing this, because I'm just too damn stupid to recognize obvious product placement and false endorsement when I see it. At least I know this email I got from a Nigerian ambassador is real!
Lobsters, "crawdads", and shrimp are disgusting. People will eat just about anything if you convince them that it's something only to be enjoyed by the upper crust (how else does one explain caviar?).
If you want to pepper your own diet with crickets roaches, go for it. Just don't suggest that it's somehow going to magically replace the diet about a billion people already currently have any more than you expect people to replace their current cow/pig/whatever diet with dog (which some people would say having an aversion to eating makes them an emotional, ignorant, bigot and I'm okay with that label in that case).
This is just a group of scientists looking to make a breakthrough and jumpstart a new industry - no different than if some jackass pointed out how sustainable seaweed is and that we should all transition to a seaweed diet. Perhaps what people see as some over-reaction to the concept is actually my contempt for the modern trend of embracing ridiculous new dietary fads, because it somehow makes people better than others and worldly. Look, I'm a big fan of the idea of just having a pill that you swallow twice a day that takes care of everything for you. I'm also a big fan of the idea that we'll eventually just be able to generate "meat" of any type right out of thin air by re-composing atoms all replicator-like. In fact, that's likely to happen long before you find the majority of the population in America, Canada, the UK, etc sitting down for a delicious nightly plate of bugs.
(I definitely won't argue that beetles would be any worse than the majority of the fast food crap people already eat, of course.)
Yes, I'm also an ignorant bigot, because I disregard replacing the westernized diet with a breatharian, fruitarian, or raw-food diet. I didn't say that nobody eats insects. I just said that it's fucking stupid to suggest that people are going to opt for replacing meat with insects - outside of the few nutjobs who currently do it, because it's now trendier than bragging about being a tofu-only-eater.
Our ancestors also flung their own shit around for much longer than we've been primarily hairless. That doesn't mean doing so today isn't gross or that replacing handshaking with it is realistic.
What I should have said if I gave a fuck about appealing to the Slashdot masses is "oh, golly, this is such a delightful idea! I haven't been this excited since the Postal Service's last single!".
But, hey, if you're overly eager to help a bunch of scientists promote their idiotic idea as some new viable commercial industry, I couldn't fucking care less. I'm going to go have a real steak, now.
Religion is quite widespread, too. That doesn't mean I'm going to drop to my knees and start praying. Some motherfuckers eat dog, for that matter. Doesn't mean there is somehow a justification for replacing my diet with Fido.
Also, there is no shortage of food. There might be a sustainability problem in some parts of the world, but for the most part the majority of land (especially in America) are completely empty and undeveloped. For fuck's sake, we pay people not to grow food, in this country.
If you're in some third-world nation with the option of starting an insect food economy on one hand or starving and dying of malnutrition on the other hand, then go for it. But let's not act like this dippy bullshit is going to replace meat for most of modern (especially western) civilizations. People are more likely to say "fuck that!" and go vegetarian, before they'll start eating insects.
And no, "you all eat insects every day" doesn't contribute to further justification whatsoever. Nobody is a hypocrite for eating food that allows a minimal amount of rat hairs or insect parts per hundreds or thousands, yet showing distaste at the idea of eating flat out insect based food.
If green house gases produced by *man* are really so significant, let's attack the real sources that have viable alternatives already and do much more damage -- like combustion engine automobiles, lawnmowers, airplanes, and industrial waste.
Anyway, there's always a group of jackasses promoting absurd diets with any number of justifications. One day it's all-tofu and the next it's a breatharian diet. Then it's an insect diet.
Hey, I propose we all eat something disgusting and horrifying, because it's "more sustainable"! (Yes, I know tribes in the middle of nowhere that dance around a fire with their boobies flapping in the breeze all day that have never seen an 'outsider' survive entirely on grub worms or whatever -- I don't care).
I have an idea. How about we attack pollution spewing gas-guzzlers, teh trend of every home owner having a "grass" lawn (very bad on the environment), and corporations dumping waste illegally before we start resorting to eating fucking giant god damn bugs. Also, what's with those giant plastic cups full of piss in the photo? Is that another movement they're proposing? Yum. Giant freaky bugs and cups of urine. The future sounds awesome.
So, they certainly must be going after the NYT and the WSJ, eh?
How else are you supposed to silence dissenting voices, if you can't identify them?
I think any red-blooded male can confirm that this is obvious common knowledge. They keep maturing earlier and earlier. Hell, have you seen them lately? You think they're all 18 or even 22 millennia until that awkward moment when you make your move and find out they're really only 15 millenia. I say it's the chemicals they're subjected to in the modern cosmos.
This has nothing to do with whether a woman crying is a turn-off (yes, white-knights, we all know crying girls make you so so so so sad). This has to do with a vial of tear-juice impacting your judgement in how attractive women are. I guess this will be completely relevant when women start literally crying buckets. Until then, when do you actually come in contact with enough tears at one time that it could possibly effect you? I'm sure a vial full of ear-wax shoved right under my nose would repulse me, too, and the last thing I'd be thinking about is sex.
So add some amount of penalty to it. Or community service. Serving time in prison -- especially dozens of years -- is just a fucking idiotic handout to the prison industry. It's not like he used violence or a weapon. Save the prison space for people that are an actual harm to you and me. At least in the long term. A few months in prison should be enough to deter just about anyone from anything, unless they're the habitual offender type (in which case they've probably already spent more time in prison than out). Sticking a guy like this in prison for the rest of his natural life for a crime of this nature is just irrational.
I'm not sure I agree with a prison sentence, if he's agreeing and able to pay the amount back. No need to further feed the prison industry with non-violent criminals. If he receives anything even approaching a significant portion of the 32 years, it would be a travesty. Plenty of people have done far more horrible things and paid far less for those crimes. Crimes which were not merely about some cash. I would hate to think that we think it's okay to essentially take the rest of a man's life for something like this. We just went through several years of far worse white collar criminals getting away with far worse (and covered by the tax payers, even!) in this country.
Are you absolutely certain it's illegal? Sure, it could be a breach of contract, perhaps. But illegal? As in criminal? C'mon.
The biggest problem with social networking is that it exposes more about people than you ever needed to know. It's easy to get by day to day with a lot of people that you have a good standing with and maybe even socialize with and spend time with. A large part of that is because you aren't subjected to the views and beliefs and personal drama and endless random fucking thoughts of each and every person you come across every day. There is a very tight circle of people around you who you know the most about and as that circle widens, the amount of information you know about them narrows. It's that fog-of-distance that allows you to have perfectly decent interactions with the majority of people.
I have seen so many stupid or dramatic things come out of so many people's mouths on places like facebook that completely obliterated how I regarded them. People I never needed to know those things about and could have otherwise thought well of. I don't see that it's much different than having a nice dinner where you invite some friends -- a few close and some not so much -- and everyone has the common sense not to start up a big argument about religion or politics. You and I can get along just dandy, but maybe not so much when I wake up every single morning to see yet more "birther" conspiracy bullshit from you about the president clogging up my "friend news feed" or your endless passive-aggressive comments about your shitty relationships.
There's a huge supply of people who haven't participated yet, but of those who have, many are not looking for the "next hot new competitor" to jump to as much as they're simply opting out of the whole social networking bullshit. It's just a matter of time before the tide turns and even more people wake the fuck up, look at their phone, and say "why in the hell do I need to announce my geographical location to five hundred "friends", every time I go to a bar or hit the 7-11?". They'll grow up, put it down, and move on.
At some point, I think all social networking bullshit will inevitably be reduced to about 10% of what it currently is.
People will finally grasp what the rest of us grasped ages ago. That is, I have nothing worth saying that hundreds or thousands of people need to know about and none of them have anything worth saying that I give a damn about. We're all just a bunch of circle-jerking morons so wrapped up in ourselves and the trivial reciprocation (to ensure that those in our circle will continue to care about us, too). Eventually people will pull their heads out of their own asses and move on.
They'll return to the way things should be done. If you have something important to say and there are people in your life that are important enough to tell it to, you email them or call them. You have a direct dialogue with them, rather than this self-absorbed mass-broadcasting of everything, where those who are on the other end are merely absorbers of your greatness. And they'll contact you directly when they have something to talk about, too. Everything else doesn't need to be shared and you can have actual individual relationships and discussions with people.
It's the same way we went through the whole web thing. The first time you discovered the web, you probably spent endless hours doing random things, just because it was new and amazing. Fifteen years later, you recognize that the web is a vast wasteland of shit and you only utilize it and things on it when you have a specific objective. Random surfing is largely a thing of the past.
It also reminds me of the AOL days (during the time, I was an engineer at Netscape) in that "everyone" was amazed by it as a consumer or an investor, but everyone I knew saw it as an obsolete toy for people that hadn't yet grown out of it. And people eventually did. Just like there are countless rational people who step back and shake their heads at Facebook and the never-ending self-important social-networking habits of people . . . which we recognize as doomed to become obsolete.