Tim’s comment > Likes and Comments
13 likes · Like
That's funny that you mention technology, because Orwell expressly presents technology as a tool that works AGAINST this type of society from ever existing. Technology both makes it easier for a government to spy on its citizens but also makes it much easier for people to connect ideas and opposition. I'm sorry, but I think you have this thing ack bassward, dear.
Well, back in real life, the companies that allow us to 'connect ideas and opposition' are also cataloging our private information and selling to the highest bidder. Don't kid yourself, if the government ever wanted to make a big-brotheresque takeover, social media companies would be the first thing that they seize.
I agree with what you just said. But I think there is also some serious evidence that supports MY theory, and it can be seen with what's happening through out the Middle East and expressly in Egypt.
Egypt had a corrupt and inefficient government. A counter example can be found in China, where internet access is firmly controlled by the government and any dissident activity is swiftly punished.
Touche, may good fellow, touche. Though I would have left out the corrupt part, only because every governmental power on this planet is corrupt. But I do see your point, and agree with it. I'm just saying that I agree with an Orwellian stance as well, that it can make the REAL governments job of trying to control it's people harder, due to the fact that regulating tech based information flow has a tendency to go awry as hackers and such find ways around the regulations. They may be punished, eventually, but a lot of times the information gets out BEFORE the punishment is delivered. All the punishment serves as is a possible deterrent to those in the future that might try to do the same thing. AND I think we have seen how well THAT works out, considering the amount of repeated crimes from different offenders.
(PS. Thanks for the wonderful discussion. I like being caught off guard with facts and examples that I haven't thought of or seen. : )
I think you make a good point: groups like Anonymous can be a very powerful force against government control of information. You are also entirely correct that all governments are corrupt, I regretted my use of the word as soon as I posted. And thank you for challenging me; it forced me to clarify my thoughts on the subject :)
Thanks, Tim. I look forward to possibly crossing keyboards with you again, in the future : ) And I hope you don't mind if I add you as a friend here on Goodreads.
I wish I'd been in on this discussion at the time. Cheers to you both!
Hello Beth! We missed your thoughts on this one but I'll keep an eye open for your posts on other topics. I'm sure we can have a battle of the keys sometime soon : )
Hi Jamie! I don't know if you saw my post in response to Timothy K.'s post [immediately below here] but it will give a clue where I come from :) I see on your profile a political lean. When you have a chance please come check out my page. I'm pretty new to the Goodreads neighborhood and still finding my way around but hope to meet up with you and share thoughts for sure. Happy Sunday!
I would be inclined to agree with Jamie on this. The Arab Spring succeeded in many respects because of the support they received from abroad thanks to the help of social media. And in bringing up China, aren't you kind of proving her point for her? They limit the kinds of information their subjects can have access to specifically because they see how unlimited access increases the potential for dissent. And if you read the Goldstein manifesto, the central point of it was how improved technology allowed for the narrowing of social distinction and meant it was finally possible to do away with class differences altogether.
There are plans for a GPS identification chip to be installed in every civilian in the future. Constant surveillance. No privacy. 1984 will be here soon if this is true.
A book is a book! It is a human right to read!
I read this book in school when i was 15, and our class then watched the film. The teacher we had was fantastic, so the issue of the sexual content in the book was discussed in context of repression . Personally, it seemed more to be that the character is seeking a connection with another human being in a society that does not value emotions like love. Definitely a good book to read in high-school, and with a teacher that is open to discuss all aspects of the book
@Dasha: actually, its RFID chips, and there aren't really plans to do this, just speculation that it might become a reality one day. In reality, the only people who are engaging in this are volunteers and futurists, people who want to "tag" themselves so they can become part of the trend known as the "internet of things".
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Levi
(new)
Aug 28, 2011 05:52AM
That's funny that you mention technology, because Orwell expressly presents technology as a tool that works AGAINST this type of society from ever existing. Technology both makes it easier for a government to spy on its citizens but also makes it much easier for people to connect ideas and opposition. I'm sorry, but I think you have this thing ack bassward, dear.
reply
|
flag
Well, back in real life, the companies that allow us to 'connect ideas and opposition' are also cataloging our private information and selling to the highest bidder. Don't kid yourself, if the government ever wanted to make a big-brotheresque takeover, social media companies would be the first thing that they seize.
I agree with what you just said. But I think there is also some serious evidence that supports MY theory, and it can be seen with what's happening through out the Middle East and expressly in Egypt.
Egypt had a corrupt and inefficient government. A counter example can be found in China, where internet access is firmly controlled by the government and any dissident activity is swiftly punished.
Touche, may good fellow, touche. Though I would have left out the corrupt part, only because every governmental power on this planet is corrupt. But I do see your point, and agree with it. I'm just saying that I agree with an Orwellian stance as well, that it can make the REAL governments job of trying to control it's people harder, due to the fact that regulating tech based information flow has a tendency to go awry as hackers and such find ways around the regulations. They may be punished, eventually, but a lot of times the information gets out BEFORE the punishment is delivered. All the punishment serves as is a possible deterrent to those in the future that might try to do the same thing. AND I think we have seen how well THAT works out, considering the amount of repeated crimes from different offenders.(PS. Thanks for the wonderful discussion. I like being caught off guard with facts and examples that I haven't thought of or seen. : )
I think you make a good point: groups like Anonymous can be a very powerful force against government control of information. You are also entirely correct that all governments are corrupt, I regretted my use of the word as soon as I posted. And thank you for challenging me; it forced me to clarify my thoughts on the subject :)
Thanks, Tim. I look forward to possibly crossing keyboards with you again, in the future : ) And I hope you don't mind if I add you as a friend here on Goodreads.
I wish I'd been in on this discussion at the time. Cheers to you both!
Hello Beth! We missed your thoughts on this one but I'll keep an eye open for your posts on other topics. I'm sure we can have a battle of the keys sometime soon : )
Hi Jamie! I don't know if you saw my post in response to Timothy K.'s post [immediately below here] but it will give a clue where I come from :) I see on your profile a political lean. When you have a chance please come check out my page. I'm pretty new to the Goodreads neighborhood and still finding my way around but hope to meet up with you and share thoughts for sure. Happy Sunday!
I would be inclined to agree with Jamie on this. The Arab Spring succeeded in many respects because of the support they received from abroad thanks to the help of social media. And in bringing up China, aren't you kind of proving her point for her? They limit the kinds of information their subjects can have access to specifically because they see how unlimited access increases the potential for dissent. And if you read the Goldstein manifesto, the central point of it was how improved technology allowed for the narrowing of social distinction and meant it was finally possible to do away with class differences altogether.
There are plans for a GPS identification chip to be installed in every civilian in the future. Constant surveillance. No privacy. 1984 will be here soon if this is true.
A book is a book! It is a human right to read!
I read this book in school when i was 15, and our class then watched the film. The teacher we had was fantastic, so the issue of the sexual content in the book was discussed in context of repression . Personally, it seemed more to be that the character is seeking a connection with another human being in a society that does not value emotions like love. Definitely a good book to read in high-school, and with a teacher that is open to discuss all aspects of the book
@Dasha: actually, its RFID chips, and there aren't really plans to do this, just speculation that it might become a reality one day. In reality, the only people who are engaging in this are volunteers and futurists, people who want to "tag" themselves so they can become part of the trend known as the "internet of things".
