Friday, August 24, 2007

I had another writing idea. I'm just going to be jotting these down so I don't forget. I'm not sure what they mean at this point other than possible future projects. This one would be called "My digital interFACE: Building of online identities". This idea came to me because I am currently consolidating my online assets to produce a more synergistic and unified front, a.k.a "My digital interFACE". I have stuff like this blog, a flickr account, a facebook account, a myspace account,a few online dating profiles (notice no link, I'm not making it that easy you sly dogs), a deviant art account, etc. I really started to think about this, when I was debating starting a account. I thought to myself that what I was really doing is creating a cyberneticself that could interact with other cyberneticselves. I started asking questions...

How well does this cyberneticself reflect me?
How well can I trust other cyberneticselves to represent their owners?
How wide is the gap between how I see my cyberneticself and how others see it? (it? I wonder if it has a sex, and if it does can it be different that what I currently am, and if it is what does that say about me. Next topic "Robot Sex: Gender Roles and Digital Identities".)

What comes next is a somewhat different line of questioning. A bit darker. I was watching a VH1 special about drugs historical impact on culture. It was very interesting. I think it was called Drug Years. It was interesting to see how people used to view drugs in a transcendental light. Before it was used to numb the pain, before it was used to get a fix, it was used to achieve enlightenment. However, Woodstock gave way to Altamont. Optimism and innocence gave way to people like Charles Manson. We were reminded of the dark side of humanity. I'm pretty optimistic and love the new opportunities to connect with people in meaningful ways. But, I am haunted by this dark side. Am I being too naive, to open in my quest to understand myself and others? I hope I'm not, but if the spontaneous joy of introducing my cyberneticself is Woodstock, when does Altamont come, and who's Charles Manson.

I had another similar but separate thought. What could a corrupt government do with the information I have on the internet. They probably know my stats, but they don't know who I am. What crazy schemes would they construct to control me based on my online identity. What corrupts governments? Wealth and power, I suppose they go hand in hand. Hello corporate America, I see you hiding there. You've been just aching to catalog me and my friends. What's the most effective way to make money? Control. This is my favorite line from Wikipedia's most likely tampered with account of Rupert Murdoch.

"In 1995, Murdoch's Fox Network became the object of scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when it was alleged that News Ltd.'s Australian base made Murdoch's ownership of Fox illegal. The FCC, however, ruled in Murdoch's favor, stating that his ownership of Fox was in the public's best interests." (Wikipedia, 8/24/2007 2:11am)

Peace out,

Shane Empie

No comments: