Read this remarkably relevant and timely essay that compares Orwell's conception of Big Brother to the New York Times writer's conception of Little Brother.
Your comment should be comprised of
1. A brief excerpt from the article (cut and paste).
2. 1-2 sentences explaining the reasons for your selection.
3. 2-3 sentences that engage the excerpt's key concept: agree, disagree, or qualify.
4. Optional: a reference to another student's analysis/comment.
"As the Internet proves every day, it isn’t some stern and monolithic Big Brother that we have to reckon with as we go about our daily lives, it’s a vast cohort of prankish Little Brothers equipped with devices that Orwell, writing 60 years ago, never dreamed of and who are loyal to no organized authority."
ReplyDeleteIt fully depicts the author's view that it is not some totalitarian or dictator government that rules over us but it is a group of people who now control what goes on the internet. It reveals that an anarchist virtual world has been created online in which almost every bit of information is shown to the world and in a manner intended to create publicity. I agree with the statement since it is true that these "Little Brothers" do not have some ulterior motive other than being noticed or noticing others. The truth is that there are millions of them who in all control the information that is put on the internet with their web-cams, blogging, and FaceBook posting. Finally, it is simply the essence of the internet that reminds one of an unrestricted structure (if you are not using the Ardsley school system that is) which has no real laws or morals. The internet has become a different world in which the taboo and horrifying things that on Earth would be averted but on the internet have become video hits.
"I clicked on the link, unable to do otherwise, and up came the awful, disconcerting image. For a moment, I felt like a voyeur, spiritually dirtied by what I saw. A moment later I was checking the weather report and the status of my I.R.A."
ReplyDeleteThis passage admits to the desensitized emotions many people share nowadays. The author is distracted for a moment by an utterly repelling picture, and in the next moment is back to his normal routine. Why does this unspeakable horror go over his head? It's probably because in this day and age so many atrocities are committed its hard to keep track and we choose to ignore them, rather than deal with them. The little brothers of the world have filled the internet and blanketed our televisions with images so awful, we can't comprehend. Thus we choose indifference and completely ignore the problems in our world.
"In some ways, his nightmare vision of state control is cozy and reassuring by comparison. Big Brother may have stifled dissent by forcing conformity on his frightened subjects, but his trespasses were predictable and manageable. What’s more, his assaults on citizens’ privacy left the concept of privacy intact, allowing the possibility that with his overthrow people might live again as they once had."
ReplyDeleteThis quote explains that our society is even worse than Orwell's "nightmare vision". Big Brother preserved the concept of privacy, while in our present society privacy ceases to exist. How can we retain our privacy when we are watched every moment by Little Brothers? We have nowhere to hide from the many devices that make our privacy nonexistent. The people in 1984 had hope that their privacy would be regained, but do we have that hope? Whether we will ever fully escape the watchful eyes of Little Brothers is an unanswered question.
"In the new, chaotic regime of networked lenses and microphones that point every which way and rest in every hand, permitting us to train them on ourselves as easily as we aim them at one another, the private and public realms are so confused that it’s best to treat them as identical."
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt shows just how deep we are buried into this addiction of technology. Every where we go and everything we do is being watched by someone, whom the author calls the "Little Brothers. At one point, our private and public lives become meshed into one, as the technological realm and reality are seen as one. Will the line ever be drawn between them, or will our actions be forever open to the public?
"With nowhere to hide, you might as well perform, dispensing with old-fashioned notions of discretion and personal dignity. If Tyler Clementi had remembered to do this — to yield his personal life to the machine and acknowledge, with Shakespeare, that the world’s a soundstage — he might have shrugged off the embarrassment he suffered and made a reality show of his existence. He might have asked Little Brother into his room instead of choosing, fatally, to keep him out in the only manner he must have thought possible. "
ReplyDeleteI enjoy the idea that I am a sentient being with a fair amount of control over my life. The idea that I am public property, no better than a circus animal, is deeply disturbing. The simple idea that I must hide to retain ownership of myself is frightening, but the idea that the only place to hide is in death leaves me petrified in fear.
So, I take comfort in the fact that I believe that Kirn is utilizing some hyperbole. Though things may enter the Internet concerning ourselves without our knowing, events such as the one at Rutgers, are anomalies. Most of the time all it takes is for one to make a conscious decision to disconnect from the system.
“Even Big Brother himself was not so cold. He, at least, had a motive for his peeping — to maintain order, to shore up his position and to put down possible rebellions — but I and the countless Little Brothers like me lack any clear notion of what we’re after.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s scary to think that we are Little Brothers constantly witnessing, capturing, clicking, seeing and or spreading things that are meant to be private to the point that it has almost become commonplace. Reading 1984 seemed scary enough, but as Kirn points out, there was a method to the madness whereas today’s little brothers are minions of nobody and are accomplishing no clear-cut goal. It’s true that we don’t have the intention of promoting this; we are merely living out our day. When Nodar Kumaritashvili, the Georgian luger, died during a practice run during the Vancouver Olympics, the crash video was replayed over and over again by news corporations and on YouTube. Like Joe said, we have become desensitized. I also agree with Andrew in that Kirn is using some hyperbole. If there was a defense for Clementi’s roommate it would be society’s desensitization, but in the end, society can’t be held responsible.
"In “1984,” the abolition of personal space was part of an overarching government policy, but nowadays it’s often nothing more than a side effect of wired high spirits. The era of the “viral video,” when footage of some absorbing slice of life can spread overnight around the globe, is bringing out the anarchist in all of us."
ReplyDeleteThese sentences demonstrate the clear difference between the ignoring of privacy in Orwell's prediction and the way in which privacy is penetrated today. Kirn uses vivid diction to precisely carve out his argument mimicking the way online videos cut into our privacy. Every video posted on the internet has the potential to gradually seep into our conscience. Kirn juxtaposes the stringent "government policy" used in 1984's society with the anarchist feelings emerging in those who use the widely popular youtube.com to emphasize the unexpected outcome of technology and invasions of privacy.
"In the new, chaotic regime of networked lenses and microphones that point every which way and rest in every hand, permitting us to train them on ourselves as easily as we aim them at one another, the private and public realms are so confused that it’s best to treat them as identical. With nowhere to hide, you might as well perform, dispensing with old-fashioned notions of discretion and personal dignity."
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt reveals technology's dominance over our lives. It's growing presence forces people to comply or "perform" to its needs instead of refocusing it back to our own necessities. Whats's horrififying to note is that socity is not taking action agansit it. As Dima mentioned socities "addiction" to technology is responsible for our increasing dependence. It clouds our judgement failing to take notice that we are no longer in control but technology is.
"In the postideological YouTube-topia that Orwell couldn’t have foreseen, information flows in all directions and does as it pleases, for better or for worse, serving no masters and obeying no party line. The telescreens, tiny, mobile and ubiquitous, at times seem to be working independently, for some mysterious purpose all their own."
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing that our society is depicted as a YouTube-topia. Can a world where videos are spread virally and a life can be ruined with the click of a button really be considered ideal? The internet can’t be revised; it’s a permanent body that can haunt a person forever. However, to some people this aspect does not deter them. Instead, they strive for the fame and recognition having a popular YouTube video seems to offer, no matter who gets hurt in the process. Isn’t it worse to be betrayed, and invaded by the one’s you know and trust, “little brothers” rather than by a distant government? These people see when you are most vulnerable, and as demonstrated by Tyler’s situation, the wrong information leaking out can have devastating results. I agree with Andrew that this article utilizes hyperbole to get across its point. No one should actually live in fear of people violating their privacy. But, just maybe next time I’ll think before I click.
Even Big Brother himself was not so cold. He, at least, had a motive for his peeping — to maintain order, to shore up his position and to put down possible rebellions — but I and the countless Little Brothers like me lack any clear notion of what we’re after.
ReplyDeleteWanting to be ahead in life is definitely a part of our human nature. I chose this selection because it is a perfect example of how we think we can get ahead in life. The author is confused as to what people are after when they snoop around a post videos to the web. I think they're after the fame, even if it's only temporary. Someone like Tyler Clementi's roommate is an example of how wanting this fame and fun can go too far, but I think the pure reason for this "peeping" is the fame we think can arise from it and the fun we can have in the process. One popular youtube video "David after dentist" is an example of a video some guy posted after taking his son to the dentist. The only reason for posting this was probably to give people a good laugh, not to harm anyone. Videos like these may spread like wildfire but if they're not causing any harm I don't see any reason to stop them. The "little brother" in all of us can always go for a little fun.
"Ours is a fragmentarian society, infinitely divided against itself and endlessly disrupted from within by much the same technologies that, in Orwell's somber novel, assured a dull and deadening stability. In some ways, his nightmarish vision of state control is cozy and reassuring by comparison"
ReplyDeleteAlthough a common belief about technology is that it connects us with our peers, perhaps on another level it also separates us from each other. Similar to the telescreens in 1984, which watch over nearly every action of the people to ensure their compliance with party demands, we use our modern-day technologies to "check up on each other". Each of us is undoubtedly guilty of examining our close friends' facebook pages to see what they've been up to; if we haven't spoken to them about it there's a probable chance that we can find something on facebook somehow related to it. The fact that we are capable of deciphering much about each other without even speaking to the someone might make us less likely to interact with our peers in the same way we used to. It's no surprise some view the omnipotent leadership in Orwell's novel as comforting, since our society seems to generate more fear for the ways which our peers, not our governing leaders, can act against us.
"[Big Brother's] assaults on citizens’ privacy left the concept of privacy intact, allowing the possibility that with his overthrow people might live again as they once had.
ReplyDeleteLittle Brother affords us no such luck, in part because he dwells inside us rather than in some remote and walled-off headquarters."
This selection strikes right to the heart of the author's argument that instead of having an outside monster to deal with, we as a society have internalized the beast. Big Brother is no longer an external threat to individuals, but there is a very real menace growing inside all of us.
The author's point is strongly supported by evidence in our culture. With the exponential rise in sites that allow individually uploaded content, the meaning of privacy, what information belongs to me, not you, is shifting. No more is the oblivious lifestyle of assumed safety. Now you are being watched by everyone, and everyone is watching you.
"Even Big Brother himself was not so cold. He, at least, had a motive for his peeping — to maintain order, to shore up his position and to put down possible rebellions — but I and the countless Little Brothers like me lack any clear notion of what we’re after."
ReplyDeleteThis article is disturbing because it illustrates a change in Orwell's original idea of Big Brother. He believed that there was one sole person overlooking society, but Orwell did not describe Big Brother to be an entirely negative thing. His purpose was to maintain peace and order in society. The reasoning behind his existence was made clear. This article describes a change, which involves the creation of many "Little Brothers". These Little Brothers are everywhere and watch over people, but do not have clear motives. This should not be accepted.
In today's society, people are always in everyone else' business. This is unnescessary unless there is a reeason to be. If someone is in danger, then it is acceptable to medel. Otherwise, it is an invasion of privacy which is frowned upon. Our society needs to be able to distinguish between what is appropriate and what isn't.
"This morning, when I sat down to write, I was distracted by a story on my computer about a Google Street View camera that snapped pictures of a corpse lying on a bloody street in urban Brazil. I clicked on the link, unable to do otherwise, and up came the awful, disconcerting image. For a moment, I felt like a voyeur, spiritually dirtied by what I saw. A moment later I was checking the weather report and the status of my I.R.A.."
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt struck me because it shows how desensitized people have become through the use of technology. The writer of this article clearly saw a picture of dead body lying on a street, and unaffected, continued with his daily life.
The fact that technology exposes us to so much violence and horrible things is beginning to desensitize us in a way we have never been before. Even big brother in 1984 could not simply disregard a dead body on a street. The author shares an experience of his own that shows that everybody, everywhere is becoming less sensitive to emotional events. In a way, the new technology, the constant surveillance of people, is slowly taking our human qualities.
"Take the young man who taped his girlfriend shimmying in front of a TV attached to a Wii Fit video game. He shot the clip without her knowledge, apparently, and in no time Google and YouTube made her famous. She capitalized on her high profile by appearing on 'The Tyra Banks Show.'"
ReplyDeleteI chose this passage because I was shocked by our society's new connotation of the words "invasion of privacy". We have grown to associate these words with fame and glory. It disgusted me that even the victim used the clip to garner attention, thus, making privacy violations into something positive and beneficial.
There is no doubt that we are becoming what Orwell feared the most. However, I believe that we are becoming more like Big Brother not because we pull cruel privacy pranks (as in Tyler Clementi's case), but because we accept these breaches in privacy without complaint. Why are we not in an uproar over these privacy violations? It is simply because our perception of privacy has changed. Due to internet sites, we lose our ability to differentiate between what is private and what can be shared. We come to believe that it is normal to publicize our personal lives. The fact that people choose to capitalize on their privacy invasions does not help. We'll do anything to get attention, even if means destroying what is most sacred to us (our private lives).
"In the postideological YouTube-topia that Orwell couldn’t have foreseen, information flows in all directions and does as it pleases, for better or for worse, serving no masters and obeying no party line."
ReplyDeleteIn our society today, people have access to all types of information through technology. It is incredible what one is able to find out simply by clicking around on the internet. The author of this article writes about the suicide of Tyler Clementi. Tyler was secretly video taped. This video ended up online and many people had access to it. It spread all over, leading to Tyler's suicide. It amazes me that people use technology in such harmful ways.
Technology allows us to have the ability to spread information basically anywhere. How far the information goes can get out of our control. As the author writes, information "[serves] no masters". It answers to no one. Once information is out there, it's out there forever thanks to technology.
"Big Brother may have stifled dissent by forcing conformity on his frightened subjects, but his trespasses were predictable and manageable. What’s more, his assaults on citizens’ privacy left the concept of privacy intact, allowing the possibility that with his overthrow people might live again as they once had."
ReplyDeleteIn 1984 the concept of Big Brother is enforced by only a small group of party members, leaving the possibility that the overall population could regain its independence and freedoms with the overthrow of the party. Since Little Brother is derived from inside ourselves we cannot rid society of his evils. Societies’ abuse of the extensive technology available and the similarity of private and public life is Little Brother. The scariest part is that the influence of Little Brother grows daily and the effects seem irreversible. Even if society was aware of the presence of Little Brother, would it possible to change the prying nature of humans?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"What’s more, his assaults on citizens’ privacy left the concept of privacy intact, allowing the possibility that with his overthrow people might live again as they once had.
ReplyDeleteLittle Brother affords us no such luck, in part because he dwells inside us rather than in some remote and walled-off headquarters."
I picked this particular passage because It was one of the most striking moments of the entire article. It was a line that really got his point embedded into my mind and it made me fully understand what he was talking about.
The author's argument is that we have all become little brothers ourselves and that the idea of privacy has almost entirely disappeared. The author explains that although Big Brother was extremely scary to think about, our own society has gone to an extent that is much worse. It's our fault that privacy is so limited. The Internet allows us to watch each other and become each other's personal stalkers, which is very scary to think about. The most frightening part of all of this, however, is the fact that there is absolutely nothing anyone could do to change it.
He might have asked Little Brother into his room instead of choosing, fatally, to keep him out in the only manner he must have thought possible."
ReplyDeleteThis line is extremely significant because as the last line it left me astonished as to what our society has become.
Especially in the second half of the sentence, the author is relating Winston's ultimate failure to beat the system of Big Brother with Tyler Clementi who committed suicide to beat the system of Little Brothers watching his every move. This is a very accurate and serious argument that is even more similar to Brave New World's "The Savage" who commits sucide as his last act of free will. Have we reached an irreversible point in our society where privacy is an abstract idea and everybody in our society, perhaps unlike Abby suggested, is responsible for our ultimate failure?
"In the postideological YouTube-topia that Orwell couldn’t have foreseen, information flows in all directions and does as it pleases, for better or for worse, serving no masters and obeying no party line."
ReplyDeleteThe author was able to precisely and proficiently convey the point of the piece in this one sentence. The idea of an unstoppable, unpredictable , non-bias is something that would capture anyones attention. More commonly, human nature draws us to serve or indulge in that which we are attracted too, in this case, the quest for greater knowledge and comfort through entertainment.
There is no doubt of the prevalent usage in todays world, its intentions are however undeniable. That being that total annihilation of privacy and the unknown. Little Brother exposes information of all types--for he doesn't have to worry about repercussions or ethical reasoning. This is a dangerous foe to be reckoned with, as it holds no weakness, or flaws by design.It can create or destroy, allow prosper or obliteration. It had the power to end ones life in the case of the young Rutgers student, who was exposed and humiliated publicly. On another spectrum however, it reveals newfound and important knowledge, like that of the treatment of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip. Little Brother answers to no one, but effects everyone.
“This morning, when I sat down to write, I was distracted by a story on my computer about a Google Street View camera that snapped pictures of a corpse lying on a bloody street in urban Brazil. I clicked on the link, unable to do otherwise, and up came the awful, disconcerting image. For a moment, I felt like a voyeur, spiritually dirtied by what I saw. A moment later I was checking the weather report and the status of my I.R.A.
ReplyDeleteEven Big Brother himself was not so cold.”
I chose this line from the essay because it made me realize how indifferent our society is to the tragedies that we are exposed to everyday.
I agree with the author that this is an extremely cold thing to do. People will see something terrible, take a moment to feel bad about it, then forget about it and move on with their lives in the next few seconds. The majority of us are passive about these things happening in the world, which is scary because those who are in need are receiving no help from those who have knowledge of what is happening to them.
"Our nonstop trafficking in stolen images, sometimes as consumers and sometimes as producers (is there any meaningful difference anymore?), adds up to a story without a plot. Is it a tragic story? On occasion. It was tragic for Tyler Clementi and for his roommate, who ruined his own life by spying on another’s, but for those who are suddenly lofted to fame and riches by achieving viral visibility, it’s closer to a feel-good comedy."
ReplyDeleteI chose this excerpt because I feel that these hidden cameras, like telescreens, are an invasion of privacy whether for better or for worse. In 1984, some would say that they bettered the community by purging the society of those against the party, while others against the party would say it was unfair and an invasion of privacy. Personally, it is no matter what an invasion of our individual privacy and to not even know were being watched makes it that much more invasive. Is there anything to do about the matter? Once the ideas are out there and in action, can they be undone to the same degree as never being there at all, or is it worth people's lives to have these little brothers out there that only half the time are beneficial?
"Even Big Brother himself was not so cold. He, at least, had a motive for his peeping — to maintain order, to shore up his position and to put down possible rebellions — but I and the countless Little Brothers like me lack any clear notion of what we’re after. A fleeting sensation of omnipotence? The gratification of idle curiosity? Our nonstop trafficking in stolen images, sometimes as consumers and sometimes as producers (is there any meaningful difference anymore?), adds up to a story without a plot."
ReplyDeleteThis passage struck me because of what it says about our society. It shows that how pathetic we are as a society to stalk and share videos without the consent of the people on the camera, and also how far we stoop down to get five minutes of fame. Finally, it is clear to the reader the point of the passage, in which I 100% agree with, which is what is wrong with our society? Why post a potentially harmful video on the internet? Is it our need for attenetion? Maybe our insecurity? Whatever the reason, it is scary to think about how our nation is full of "little brothers" who have nothing better to do but stalk you and invade your life. And in some cases, cause suicide, something we don't need more of in our society.
"Even Big Brother himself was not so cold. He, at least, had a motive for his peeping — to maintain order, to shore up his position and to put down possible rebellions — but I and the countless Little Brothers like me lack any clear notion of what we’re after. A fleeting sensation of omnipotence? The gratification of idle curiosity? Our nonstop trafficking in stolen images, sometimes as consumers and sometimes as producers (is there any meaningful difference anymore?), adds up to a story without a plot."
ReplyDeleteThis passage discusses the fact that there is no reason for the amount of knowledge we have of things going on around us. People feel the need to see EVERYTHING that is going on, when really there is no need.
I completely agree with the point the author is trying to make. A good example of this is what goes on on social network sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. On these sites, people can post statuses, saying what they are doing. Then people look at these statuses, and care that other people are going out to dinner for example. In our society, people feel the need to tell others everything, and be told everything as well. This is completely unnecessary, and often times can end up hurting other people. Who really cares what other people are doing. Why do people want to see videos of people doing stupid things just to make fun of them? Why do people want to join groups making fun of other people. This just hurts other people and, in many situations, causes them to do drastic things, like the incident involving Tyler Clementi.
"The snoop had no discernible agenda other than silly, juvenile troublemaking, which made his actions more disturbing in certain ways than the oppressive prying of a dictatorship...Clementi, unlike Orwell’s Winston Smith, who hid from the telescreens whenever possible and understood that the price of personhood was ceaseless self-censorship and vigilance, had no way of knowing that the walls had eyes. Nor did his unseen observer anticipate the ultimate consequences of his intrusion"
ReplyDeleteThe power we have at our fingertips is unbelievable and everyday it is just growing. Clementi's roommate's intentions were probably malicious, but I doubt he intended for Clementi to commit suicide. His actions show, that with today's technology, even just a casual prank with no real objective could be extremely detrimental to a person. Just think, if a person did have an actual purpose and decided to wield the technology he had on hand, he could probably unleash ABSOLUTE chaos on our world. And, just like Clementi, we would have no way to shield ourselves or even to know what's going on until it's too late. There is no way we can constantly monitor ourselves which is evident by the "heretical" actions of Winston, the main character in 1984. Considering the technology which is available to us, we would have to suppress all our emotions and actions, basically restrain ourselves constantly, in order to not let the "watchers" not get the best of us.
"For Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University student who recently committed suicide after a live-stream video of an intimate encounter of his was played on the Web, Little Brother took the form of a prying roommate with a webcam. The snoop had no discernible agenda other than silly, juvenile troublemaking, which made his actions more disturbing in certain ways than the oppressive prying of a dictatorship."
ReplyDeleteThe essay makes accurate arguments supporting the view that our modern society is confusing private and public matters. But what is most disturbing is the picture underneath the heading of the essay. Isn't this also a public display of affection that portrays a "intimate encounter" so similar to Clementi, who committed suicide as a result of this? Plus, the roommate's excuse for doing such a dreadful thing was that he just thought of it at the time "silly [and] juvenile troublemaking", it is very similiar to the thought of the author that thinks that the photograph of a man and a woman embracing each other with a tender kiss, was merely no big deal and decided to post it as the picture for his/her essay. Isn't it simply the same action as the roommate? What difference is there?
"Little Brother affords us no such luck, in part because he dwells inside us rather than in some remote and walled-off headquarters."
ReplyDeleteIt's scary to think that yes we are all little brothers. All equal but searching to gain a little more power over someone else by bringing them down. And even scarier, we do this simply out of human nature to make us feel better about ourselves. This is so true. Kirn states in his article that the largest mistake Orwell made in 1984 was blaming the problems on one Big Brother instead of all the little brothers. Of course he couldn't have ever predicted we would turn out so corrupt all turning on each other, he wasn't even that pesamistic. However, when were always trying to throw someone else under the bus, we will still never acheive anything or get anywhere.
"The roommate, it seems, was acting on impulse, at least initially, and his transgression couldn’t be anticipated, let alone defended against. Clementi, unlike Orwell’s Winston Smith, who hid from the telescreens whenever possible and understood that the price of personhood was ceaseless self-censorship and vigilance, had no way of knowing that the walls had eyes."
ReplyDeleteI chose this section because it is a complete contrast between 1984's Big Brother and our "Little Brother" as described in the article. This segment demonstrates how we are so completely unaware of how open and available all of our most intimate moments are to others, through technology and through our own decisions.
I agree with the message behind this statement 100%. Clementi was unaware that his private life was being filmed and watched for amusement--he had no idea that his every move was being secretly monitered and that at any moment, his secrets would be revealed. This is an accurate description of what technology is most capable of: the invasion and tampering with someone's private life.
-Emily Shapiro
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Sometimes the results are welcome, benign, and the intruder does his subject a favor. Take the young man who taped his girlfriend shimmying in front of a TV attached to a Wii Fit video game. He shot the clip without her knowledge, apparently, and in no time Google and YouTube made her famous. She capitalized on her high profile by appearing on 'The Tyra Banks Show.'"
ReplyDeleteI chose this passage because it reminded me of the benifits of selection of detail. Kirn could have just as easily used many examples that show benifits of 'little brother' and people would be much more open minded to the idea. Instead, Kirn choses a famous example in which someone has died because of the technology he describes, which simply shows us that with anything people need to learn to exhibit self-control, as they do with any new technology. When SUV's first came out they were constantly involved in colissions, however as car companies continued to produce more SUV's they also began to produce safer SUV's. The same wil likely happen with facebook, youtube, and twitter (YEAH JOE!); it will take time but people will learn how to use it safely, allowing more people to reap its benifits, and less incidinces that result in harm.
"In the postideological YouTube-topia that Orwell couldn’t have foreseen, information flows in all directions and does as it pleases, for better or for worse, serving no masters and obeying no party line."
ReplyDeleteThis sentence jumped off the page for me: characterizing our society using an internet movie site sounds barbaric but is, in fact, accurate to a large extent. The sentence almost has the ability to sum up the entire article's message--the internet has become a means of not only praising people, but destroying them.
By describing the 'little brothers' that swarm the internet as impartial is true (frightening? yes, but true nevertheless). In a website like YouTube, new videos are added every second and the reasons for their uploads range (for laughs, to raise awareness, to get famous, etc.) with these reasons being as different as night and day. A video on YouTube can either ruin someone's life or save someone's life and this capability that this website, as well as a multitude of other websites (including our loved facebook) is alarming. People's entire futures can be put in jeopardy because of the internet and the websites that are so commonly flocked. Videos on YouTube have the number of views shown on the bottom and most videos that we hear about already have values that are six digits or more. Just imagine find out there's an extremely embarrassing YouTube video of yourself, already with a 4,000 hits...how unnerving is that? It's true: information spreads like a virus through the internet, not caring whose future and well being it's harming.
I completely agree with motioncitysound493's comment "the internet is a permanent body that can haunt a person forever". Because, as scary as it may be to admit it, it is.
Nicole Schoenbrun ---
ReplyDelete"...[Big Brother's] assaults on citizens’ privacy left the concept of privacy intact, allowing the possibility that with his overthrow people might live again as they once had.
Little Brother affords us no such luck, in part because he dwells inside us rather than in some remote and walled-off headquarters."
I found this passage particularly powerful because of it's methods of comparing and contrasting "Big Brother" of 1984 and the "Little Brothers" of our society. It evokes fear by saying that Little Brother is not something as solid and easily-discarded as Big Brother may have been, it is deeply embedded in our society and has permanently changed how we live and interact.
The key concept here is the vulnerability that technology has brought us: Little Brother is every where because we have made it so that technology can be every where. Cameras, iPods, and other recording devices are around every corner, and like Big Brother, we can never truly find any privacy from it. The main difference, the author cares to point out, is how dispersed the problem is: Big Brother is contained in one place and with effort could be abolished but Little Brother courses through the very veins of our society.
"The irony is that these images, which caused a convulsion of national moral conscience, were taken — in some cases, at least — as photographic boasts or trophies. So giddy with power and numb to its abuses were the camera-wielding prison guards that they indicted themselves with their own antics."
ReplyDeleteThis sentence really stuck out of the paragraph, because the author spoke about how useful Little Brother can be, but it is only due to his sight into everything.
I believe that this statement is frighteningly true. We are so addicted to taking pictures and sharing our life with everyone, that you may cause your own destruction. Taking such a picture is stupid (yet helpful), and putting it on the internet is even stupider. Many people don't understand that files on the internet are there to stay. Sure you can delete a photo on Facebook, but that photo is still in Facebook's servers. The internet is a permanent thing, and although it can help us uncover abuses around the world, it can also be the home to many Little Brothers.
"It was tragic for Tyler Clementi and for his roommate, who ruined his own life by spying on another's, but for those who are suddenly lofted to frame and riches by achieving viral visibility, it's closer to feel-good comedy."
ReplyDeleteWatching viral videos, on the surface seems just as Mr. Kirn puts it at the end of this sentence, feel-good comedy. But what happens when we become too consumed in watching the lives of others, too consumed it the knowledge of the condition of others. Comparison of others to ourselves seems to be the most prevalent reason, seeing how we stand in relation to others. We have different motives than Big Brother in that we wish not to control others, but to control ourselves. We have to know the status of others and when, through constant observation of others find a flaw in someone else, we exploit it.
“…The private and public realms are so confused that it’s best to treat them as identical.”
ReplyDeleteThis statement left me unnerved. If our society believes that there is no difference between what is public and private, I worry that we will lose the society we have today. There is a reason that we have a public life and a private life, it is unhealthy to keep everything private but also not right to allow everyone to know what is occurring in your life. Not everything that occurs in our lives should be shared with the universe. In the novel 1984, we watched how Winston Smith suffered because he had no way to keep his life private. Everything he did was watched and analyzed. I fear a life like his if we continue on this path.
I do not think we should be displaying our private life everywhere, especially on facebook. I think that the fact that we have our own little brother watching has more of a negative impact then a positive one. We have no privacy when “little brother” is watching and I fear this will keep increasing with the growth of technology until it is true that the public and private lives we lead will no longer be ours but everyone’s to watch, like a reality TV show.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Little Brother does a positive service to society by turning the tables on the state and watching the watchers"..."information flows in all directions and does as it pleases, for better or for worse, serving no masters and obeying no party line"
ReplyDeleteI picked this quote because it brought to my attention that although our society has so many links to that of 1984, the causes that lead to our limited societies are completely different.
In 1984, the totalitarian government was a dominant power that intentionally stripped people of their freedom and privacy. However, under America's lenient and democratic control, we are capable of doing anything we please without restraint and the actions that we wish to do, epically through the internet, mimics the government's actions in 1984. Each and every person who has ever snooped or stuck their nose into anther's situation is a member of the band of "little brothers". We sub-consciously control and regulate each other. We may not have a specific intent, however just like in 1984, we are still subjecting ourselves and each other to lack of privacy and over all well-being.
-Nicole Galletta