Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Current Doctor Who Warns Against Facebook

samzenpus posted 1 year,9 days | from the keep-your-friend-requests dept.

Sci-Fi 218

judgecorp writes "Matt Smith, the current actor playing Doctor Who, doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, despite his geek icon status. He worries that social media encourages us to create "surrogate versions" or "celebrity versions" of ourselves. He also, arguably, doesn't need their help, being a celebrity already. Smith made the comments in St Petersburg, where he hosted the final of Microsoft's Imagine Cup for student inventors, won this year by a British team with a mesh music-playing application."

cancel ×


Does anyone care? (5, Insightful)

redmid17 (1217076) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284665)

Use it or don't. Plenty of celebrities fall on both sides of the fence. Some love their privacy. Some embrace the public light and social media for all it's worth. This doesn't need to be a slashdot post.

Re:Does anyone care? (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284995)

Some love their privacy

Davros (Revelation of the Daleks, Pt.2): You can not steal what already has been abandoned.

Re:Does anyone care? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285145)

Some love their privacy

Davros (Revelation of the Daleks, Pt.2): You can not steal what already has been abandoned.

That you would use a remark written by a screenwriter as a guiding principle for your life
is so far beyond pathetic that there are no words to describe your sorry state.

Re:Does anyone care? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285335)

Wow, the faggots who mod sensible posts down are out in force today.

Just remember : the world doesn't need your sorry faggot asses and
AIDs was introduced to exterminate your kind.

Re:Does anyone care? (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285511)

Some love their privacy

Davros (Revelation of the Daleks, Pt.2): You can not steal what already has been abandoned.

Or as kids say it, "Finders, Keepers" ;-)

Re:Does anyone care? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285297)

As they say: Fuck Facebook.

Duh. (-1)

singingjim1 (1070652) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284699)

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course people use it as a type of alter ego. It's a way for me to write opinion and commentary. Does the columnist say the things he writes out loud in polite conversation? He clearly doesn't understand the point of it all.

Re:Duh. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284831)

Thank you Captain Obvious.

That's Doctor Obvious.

Re:Duh. (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284917)

Doctor who?

Re:Duh. (4, Interesting)

war4peace (1628283) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285343)

Funny as it sounds, I read the title as "Doctor, who warns against Facebook" - so I read on thinking it was about an actual doctor warning against Facebook for some weird health reason.
So it should have sounded as "Current Doctor Who who warns..." :)

Re:Duh. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285573)

Except "Doctor Who" is just a common response to the character's name "The Doctor" so to those familiar with the show, your parsing still makes more sense.

Agreed: (1)

Gary Cotugno (2915239) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285931)

Freaking Journalists today, apparently, never went to school! They seem to have no idea how to form correct methods of communicating things accurately! So why in the hell do the Editors even keep them?

Re:Duh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285999)

Punctuation is the difference between "I helped my Uncle jack off a horse." and, "I helped my Uncle Jack, off a horse."

Re:Duh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285397)


Hu's on first (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285401)

More like Dr. Hu [] .

To quote daleks (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284711)


Re:To quote daleks (1)

sjwt (161428) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285507)



NEWS (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284713)

Famous man bucks trendy thing

Approved by guy who certainly does not to own television by his own repeated admission.

You may now affix your sunglasses

Re:NEWS (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285899)

And bowtie!

The Doctor (1, Informative)

Galaga88 (148206) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284751)

Before anybody rants about them calling him "Doctor Who" rather than The Doctor: I'm a huge Who fan and I call him Doctor Who when talking to people who aren't necessarily fans. Saves a lot of time and confusion for everybody.

Re:The Doctor (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284837)

I like to call him Herr Doktor and picture him with a monocle. Then I pretend he's the antagonist. It really makes you understand why everyone wants to kill him.

Re:The Doctor (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285147)

Well, he did save Hitler.

Re:The Doctor (1)

camperdave (969942) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285817)

That was an accident. As I recall, they left him locked in the closet.

Re:The Doctor (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285025)

ah, thank goodness.....

I was about to rant about them calling him "Doctor Who" rather than The Doctor. But now I know how *YOU* call him, everything is alright.

Re:The Doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285105)

I'm a huge Who fan and I call him Doctor Who

What's being a Who fan got to do with anything? I mean I like their music, but I don't see the connection.

Re:The Doctor (5, Informative)

TWX (665546) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285199)

In everyone else's defense, they've been terribly inconsistent about the "the Doctor" versus "Doctor Who" throughout the show's 50 years. There was an era when the license plate on a vehicle of the Doctor's was "WHO", and the credits have occasionally listed the actor as "Doctor Who" as opposed to "the Doctor". Then there was the overemphasis on the question mark throughout at least Peter Davison's and Colin Baker's years, and that might have extended into the Sylvester McCoy years, can't remember for certain.

In my opinion, the 1996 TV movie that everyone claims to abhor has a lot more in common with the modern show than it does with the original run. It's almost like we needed a scapegoat for the change to be accepted, like how the George Lazenby James Bond movie is less well received even though one could argue that it's a much more coherent story than many of the other movies...

Re:The Doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285235)

I think it is VERY imporatnt to know that both the good DR and myself have got a juicey boot-tay!

Re:The Doctor (3)

Cro Magnon (467622) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285487)

I'm not a Doctor Who fan, and when I first heard "The Doctor", I thought of the holographic Doctor on Star Trek Voyager.

Re:The Doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285867)

That's because you were exposed to ST before Doctor Who.

Re:The Doctor (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,8 days | (#44286069)

I thought of the holographic Doctor on Star Trek Voyager.

I remember that character, but I always want to call him "Dr. Cinnamon" thanks to a Mad Magazine parody of Voyager.

The screwy stuff our brains retain and subsequently cobble together...

Side note: Chris Eccleston was a better doctor than a lot of people give him credit for; second best, IMO, just after Tennant.

Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (5, Interesting)

MisterSquid (231834) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284773)

He worries that social media encourages us to create "surrogate versions" or "celebrity versions" of ourselves.

Creating a surrogate or celebrity version of oneself is precisely the point of Facebook. It is a version of the self that can be exchanged through a social medium with others. That "surrogate" self can be be cited, exalted, devalued, and circulated. It's "celebrity" for people who don't necessarily have access to major media channels and networks of people to promote a traditional media celebrity self.

Everyone's gonna get their 15 minutes.

The question, to my mind, is why Matt Smith believe this is any different than the media that have made a surrogate version of him.

Re:Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285011)

For a couple weeks, I had a fake account representing Rusty Shackleford from King of the Hill (a notorious anti-government, pro-privacy character of course). There were a couple hundred other Rusty Shacklefords too. Is that not what you meant by celebrity version of myself? lol.

Re:Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (1)

war4peace (1628283) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285023)

Judging by the rate at which EVERYONE creates accounts on Facebook or Twitter, soon enough (few years) you could be famous for NOT using it.

Re:Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (4, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285455)

I believe the term surrogate here is being used to mean substitute. As in abandoning ones real personality and substituting one created in social media.

In the past, it was accepted for some people to have stage names (or nom de plume). It was a way to separate work from private life. The stage name could go with an invented personality. Sometimes it was a character name that became associated with an actor. They could ham it up, then go home. It only got weird when someone permanently became the caricature they created.

With traditional media, that was limited and controlled. Not many people had reasons for stage names, and when and where they had to use it was easier to define. And the true wackos (unless it was matched by great talent) were sidelined.

With social media, everyone is creating a stage name. And blurring the lines of when they are using it. They spend huge amounts of time polishing the image they project. They use it as a substitute for real interactions with other human beings. For some, it becomes a warped substitute for their actual personality, which they neglect. Not for everyone, but all to many people.

As the actor playing the Doctor, Matt has seen some of the pressure to become the surrogate personality. To become the Doctor 24/7. He believes social media increases that pressure. So he's opted out of social media. And he's suggesting that others would benefit from opting out too. Not because there isn't anything to be gained, but because creating and becoming a surrogate personality is not worth it.

Re:Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285951)

well you can do the alternative with hotmail and ms services. create a real version of yourself for ms/nsa. the info is more useful if it's not beautified for fb.

Re:Surrogate versions? Andy Warhol said it best. (1)

avandesande (143899) | 1 year,8 days | (#44286065)

But why? If everyone is a celebrity then the value of being one is nil. I know several wise and effective people who never draw attention to themselves- and most of their associates hold them in high regard.

Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (3, Interesting)

neminem (561346) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284775)

Or just, 'Matt Smith Warns Against Face Book'. We know who Matt Smith is.
I stopped watching Doctor Who after all of season 5 blew huge balls, and the first handful of episodes of season 6 (except, partially, the one written by Neil Gaiman) were even worse. Still, given they've in the past mercilessly made fun of stuff like people relying on their GPS, I would not have been at all surprised if Current Doctor Who had indeed warned against Facebook, which could have been amusing. But why should I care about the opinions of a random actor?

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44284919)

Yeah, I read that title as:

Yet Another Quack That Warns of the Perils of Facebook

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (3, Informative)

Eunuchswear (210685) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284955)

I stopped watching Doctor Who after all of season 5 blew huge balls

What? Patrick Troughton was great, and I loved the Yeti in the web-filled London Underground tunnels. (And Lethbridge-Stewart showing up for the first time).

Or are you talking about someother season 5?

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (1)

neminem (561346) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285143)

Shush. You know what I mean. (Though I have watched some of old-actually-season-1. I thought it was extremely dull. I haven't gotten around to watching any of the *later* old-DW, though.)

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285735)

Hah. I watched it when it was first broadcast.

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285859)

Hah. I watched it when it was first broadcast.

Did you tape it by any chance? I'm missing a few episodes.

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (0, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285421)

To me, leftist politics ruined the last two seasons of Dr. Who. The utterly unnecessary multiple militant homosexual and cross species relationships and homosexual characters ruined it for me.

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285579)

That is getting really old. It's like he is trying to beat Davis for overto

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285429)

Or just, 'Matt Smith Warns Against Face Book'. We know who Matt Smith is.

But more people know what Doctor Who is.

Re:Title should be 'Actor Currently Playing...' (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285601)

Single quotes would have made all the difference to me. Current 'Doctor Who' warns against Facebook. I would have no idea who Matt Smith was until I saw the reference in the article. But I *do* have an inkling of who Doctor Who is despite not being a fan.

Tell that to clevernickname (1)

mamer-retrogamer (556651) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284787)


Eleventh Doctor doesn't care for it, either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284791)

Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284797)

A few years back when I was looking for work out of college, virtually every prospective employer asked to be friended, or asked what my FB/Twitter/etc. accounts were. When I told them that I didn't bother to spill my guts online to all and sundry, the interview was terminated, and was told something along the lines of , "no FB account is like not having a phone or E-mail address, and we don't want any useless Luddites blocking progress in our company."

So, I made dummy accounts, threw some sanitized posts on them, and was able to pass that hurdle.

Re:Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice.. (5, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284857)

You see, THAT annoys me.

Personally I stay off Facebook. I made some dummy account years back just because I was unsuccessfully try to find an old friend I'd lost touch with. It's still there gather dust, I have ZERO friends on it and no posts since the day it was created like 3 years ago.

I'm in IT and I know people that feel the same way, they don't want to bother with the fake socialization or post stuff out there linked to their real name for the whole world to see. I have 10 years of experience behind me and a Masters in Computer Science. If that's not enough to show I'm in the IT field then it's a sad state of the field that someone with 1 year of experience and a FaceBook account would get preference.

Re:Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice.. (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284881)

Funny - I tell prospective colleagues that my FB account is for my hobbies; if they would like to connect to me professionally they may send me an invitation on LinkedIn. On a related note, I also don't give out my personal cell phone number. If you want to get in touch with me, call my office phone and leave a message or send me an email, or send a text message to my office number.

Re:Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285185)

Personally going to dump my cellphone after this one dies. (its a nokia dumbphone however, so that will probably be around 2036)

I just don't trust them nomore. I know its a great convenience to have a cell phone, but I can live without that convenience.

Re:Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285263)

Any company with an attitude like that is in for more problems than just Luddites blocking progress, unless the company's entire business revolves around making insipid privacy-violating Facebook games.

At least twice now, I've interviewed for jobs (and got them) and when asked about Facebook I told them that my part-time side job was teaching advanced web design at the local university, and I didn't have a Facebook account because their interface was offensive. Both jobs were in IT, and one of them involved re-building the company's internal data tracking web application. In that case, my disagreement with Facebook was what got me the job.

Re:Unfortunately, not all of us have that choice.. (3, Insightful)

Bigbutt (65939) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285551)

That's too bad. I purposefully do not link my Facebook account with anyone at work (anyone at all). I have to work with these guys. Finding out they're racist assholes makes it a bit harder to deal with them without having to think about their personal beliefs.


Finding old friends (5, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284809)

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Facebook or Twitter either. I DO think they have their uses, such as Facebook finding old friends you lost touch with years ago and to be hang-outs for fans and clubs and whatever. And some Twitter feeds are quite useful, giving news or humorous anecdotes.

But yeh, I've seen what Matt Smith is talking about. People exaggerate how "into" something they are, yet I know them in real life and the cause / sport / whatever they claim to be so into.... they maybe spend one weekend a year doing.

And some twitter rants: they just forward something they heard on Twitter and feel it's the truth, when you dig past the onion layers and find out it's not. But, I read it on Twitter Umm, good for you? That doesn't make it true.

Re:Finding old friends (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285997)

the problem with his comments is that it applies to .. well, everything social.

especially so to even letter correspondents which used to be popular for people to communicate - a lot of it was so full of formal bullshit fantasy they're not even funny to read, but that was the 'facebook' back then, you'd get maybe an introductionary letter from someone else in your field or whatever and start the letters... and people would write beautified versions of events in them - of course back then it was easier to get away with it too than on fb(fewer people potentially calling on your bullshit).

Not as simple as that (1)

vikingpower (768921) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284851)

We all seek to create representations of ourself, so-called "personae". We don quite another persona when seducing a potential partner than when we work with a colleague or talk with a friend. Facebook has extended the possibility, for John Doe, to do this, namely online. Of course one can choose not to have a Facebook persona, so did I. But having "surrogate" versions of ourself implicitly states that there would be, somehow somewhere, a "real" version. Which one, pray, would that be ? This alone underscores the vacuity of Smith's utterings.

Re:Not as simple as that (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285027)

Believe it or not, some of us aren't liars and pretenders and actually try to always be ourselves. This is very hard for the liars to grasp.

Fine, no one is making you (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,9 days | (#44284853)

But don't get all preachy about it either. Just because you don't watch TV doesn't mean you have to be the snob prick at the party who has to constantly remind everyone "I don't even *OWN* a TV".

Geeks don't use facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284855)

" doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, "

Facebook is the province of teenage girls, and senior citizens.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#44284885)

some of us use it to keep in touch with distant family and friends, especially those who aren't tech savvy enough for skype.

Re:well (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285685)

I use it for moments I want to share. It's a public journal. I also remember my audience. My mom is listed as a friend as well as my boss. This helps keep me from posting stupid, compromising stuff. People that do post that kind of stuff would find another outlet to make public fools of themselves if there was no facebook.

When my wife pasted away in May, it was extremely useful for contacting her friends and posting rosary and funeral information. It also gave people a public outlet to for them to pay their respects. It meant a lot.

(Of course, our families and close friends, I notified over the phone or in person.)

Matt, wake up. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284921)

. He worries that social media encourages us to create "surrogate versions" or "celebrity versions" of ourselves

It's common knowledge that in a new relationship, the first year with someone you don't really meet them, just their representative. Everyone puts on a different face in public, or for new people. This isn't news to anyone who isn't Forever Alone guy. Social media doesn't "encourage" us; We already do it anyway. Social media just allows this to be more transparent.

It's no surprise Facebook doesn't have a "dislike" button, or that there's no notification if someone "unfriends" you or blocks you. Even the website itself tries to hide negativity. Everyone lies. Ask any interrogator. Every, mother effing one of you is a liar. Of course, it's mostly small lies, like how girls lie about their age or guys lie about how great they are at sex, or how we lie about how much we're enjoying it anyway... oh and the list goes on... those are just stereotyped examples.

Social media didn't create this trend, Matt. Hop in your TARDIS and fly back a thousand years and you'll have Kings and Queens demanding the painters take a few extra pounds off their royal portraits...

Re:Matt, wake up. (5, Insightful)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285073)

Not everybody lies. It's what makes some of us 'socially'' awkward.

Re:Matt, wake up. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285597)

Not everybody lies. It's what makes some of us 'socially'' awkward.

Liar. You're socially awkward because you never leave the basement. :D

Re:Matt, wake up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285327)

Everyone puts on a different face in public, or for new people.

Ah! That's what I've been doing wrong! Thanks!

-- Forever Alone Guy

Bit odd for some one (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284923)

who makes a living as an actor to rail against "alternate versions" of our selves after all we present differently at work with family, friends and loved ones - I do wonder if hes suffering from the same sort of angsty issues about acting that Harry H Corbet did

Re:Bit odd for some one (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285123)

not odd at all. He's just pointing out that he's better than everybody else because he created his persona without fb.

Re:Bit odd for some one (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285803)

...and he gets paid to do it!

Jokes on him (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44284929)

I'm just as silly, brutally honest and disgusting as I am on Facebook, Google+, Myspace, Bebo and any other site I have ever had an account on. Including here, but I cannot for the life of me remember what the account was again, so I am too lazy to re-register.

I prefer not to lie to myself or anyone I know. In fact, I never do. Why lie to people you supposedly care about?
Lying gets you nowhere. Except in to the pants of some awful horny teenager in a bar.

Why be friends with people you dislike? Why be friends with people you share nothing in common with? It is like people that play League of Legends. Why torture yourself? Maybe you are in to that, but then, why not tell your friends you like stabbing needles in to your nipples or getting slabbed with leather whips just so you can suffer a little more?
Why be friends with prudes? More like blend yourself in to a delicious pudding since that is your only use. If only humans were tasty.
Why be friends with boring people? They hold back EVERYTHING. They are the reason we aren't in space yet or have 5-boobed females and ballsacks on our necks to we don't sit on our balls!

Seems pretty geeky (4, Insightful)

Sheik Yerbouti (96423) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284943)

I know tons of geeks who eschew social media so I think it actually gives him geek cred.

Age (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44284969)

It's really an age thing, and I mean that in a non-discriminating way. I'm 22, and to me and the people around me, it's simply the de facto mode of communication, for better or worse. It functions very much like a public forum (in the Roman Forum way), the central place of the village where everybody hangs out and exchanges news. If you're around 40 or 50, I understand very well that you'd find Facebook useless and pointless.

Doesn't sound like much of a warning ... (1)

Meetch (756616) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284985)

... more of a commentary around the importance some people place on social media. Slightly tabloid, this slashdot article is. Mmmm...

not surprising (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,8 days | (#44284999)

I noticed that a ton of IT students at my college don't use Facebook. And it wasn't some hippie fine arts college or something with people bringing typewriters in to be ironic, it's a low cost public one. So I researched it and in the #1 most likely demographics to use Facebook, the least likely group within it is IT professionals. I have a feeling we're all on to something, as I don't use it either.

Re:not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285543)

That's only because they have no friends, obviously!

Re:not surprising (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285645)

I initially set up an account to let the folks on my forum know when the server took a dump since most of my users are also on Facebook. Now I'm using it when I go on hikes or motorcycle trips. I can double snap a picture; one on my tourist camera and one on my iPhone in order to post to Facebook for my friends to "like".

And I've been into computers/in IT since 1980. So count me in the 'least likely' group. There are a few of us (I'm not quite in the Senior Citizen group...)


Re:not surprising (1)

MrTester (860336) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285823)

I think Facebook today is what AOL was 15 or 20 years ago.
AOL packaged up the ISP access with a web and email client. Users didnt have to be tech savvy and didnt have to know about the other ways to accomplish "getting online." It was easy. But savvy users found it limiting and too expensive for what it did.

Similar thing with Facebook. Savvy users consider the privacy issues too burdensome and find other ways to accomplish the same things. But for the masses "it just works."
As the masses become more and more savvy Facebook will be forced to change, or will go the way of AOL.

Re:not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44286029)

Quickly! Someone make a 'Facebook for IT people!'

Lots of Faces to any person (1)

oxnyx (653869) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285019)

Having spend some time during my BA in History reading copy books (books with copys of letter that people sent out) and other stuff they wrote - keeping a collection of selfs is normal. People behave differently to their family, around different friends at work and to neighbors. My sister I understand when her sisters aren't around is very talkative. At home Mom put in a 30 sound bite summary of the day rule in at dinner when she was in high school because otherwise she'd never tell us anything. Facebook is what the person lets it become. You can says some really dumb things; it could be an insight into your heart or you can fill it up with quotes write over pictures. As a historian I say fill it up or will make nice essay for future Historians to try pick into something useful later.

Re:Lots of Faces to any person (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285553)

This is precisely what I thought of. I had a wonderful CS lecturer in college who explained, when talking about online privacy issues, that part of the reason we need privacy is that different behavior is appropriate in different social groups. You don't talk to your boss the same way you talk to your friends at a bar, lest you get fired; you don't talk to your friends at a bar the same way you talk to your boss, lest they think you stiff and withdrawn; you don't talk to any of them the way you talk to your spouse. This is normal and healthy social functioning, and none of it works if every group is listening to you all the time.

And that's the problem with Facebook et al -- exchanges that we think of as private (in the sense of, for all my friends to see but not my boss) spread around to unintended contexts where they aren't appropriate. So Mr. Smith seems to have it wrong: Facebook's problem isn't that it lets you create a surrogate version of yourself; it's that it lets you create only one.

orly? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285031)

I noticed during my limited interactions with Facebook that people who are morons in real life are twice and annoying, rude, and stupid on Facebook. So much for an idealized, sanitized, celebrity version of themselves. I don't think it's true for everyone or even close to the majority.

Despite?! (4, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285119)

[someone] doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, despite his geek icon status.

Emphasis mine. That's like saying someone doesn't smoke, despite being a doctor.

He makes sense (1)

houbou (1097327) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285139)

There is a lot of smart about Matt Smith. I have a facebook account, but only use it when truly necessary, usually for development. I've always known there is nothing for free in this world and I value my privacy more than free internet socializing. I would rather PAY for an account with the guarantee that everything is 100% under my control.

Odd (1)

Tolkienfanatic (1111661) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285249)

That he would make these comments at an invent that probably spawned a lot Facebook and Twitter wannabes

Sounds like... (1)

3seas (184403) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285261)

... elites not wanting their status undermined.

Technology that has brought people closer together has allowed a great deal to be changed in the perception of things in many fields.
I.E. Music, Movies, and more.... and now there is what he is concerned about.... star status

Bleeding of groups (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285279)

I have a problem with Facebook because I keep it around mostly to keep in touch with very different groups of people. I have a bunch of cousins and uncles and such in other states, and then I have a bunch of people I used to go to church with in another state. And somehow, everything gets weird when they blur together in a thread. People are, socially, different dependent upon which group they are around, and it almost forces the creation of a new you. Not on purpose, just that need to conduct oneself in a way that makes sense to everyone.

The NSA on top of that makes it even more uncomfortable.

Not the best candidate for anti-facebook (3, Funny)

s.petry (762400) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285361)

Numerous studies have been done indicating that it's not just an alter-ego problem. Here [] is a fantastic post on the deeper issues. As with TV, there are addiction mechanisms build in to keep you doing it. Of course lets not mention altering your brain waves and making you less able to process information.

old school (3, Interesting)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285393)

yes back in the late 80's i owned a software company that wrote addons for a BBS system called the MajorBBS that was really one of the first true multi-user online systems available for the general public to own and deploy. the interesting thing was that, consistently, when sysops ran the numbers, online chat represented 85-95% of the use of these systems that allowed all sorts of other really cool things to do, in real-time, with other users.

the point of this is that facebook and twitter are really nothing more then personalized chat rooms, and looking back it isnt surprising at all that they represent the 800lb gorillas of the internet because, to be honest, it seems that all everyone really ever wanted to do online is chat (besides pr0n and "research" of course).

i think a facebook backlash is inevitable, like everyone hating nickleback or david guetta...i stopped using it except to get a hold of my kids about a year ago, and i enjoy letting people know i think its a total waste of if i was younger i could see a lot more useful uses for it, like hooking up...but im sure Matt Smith isnt hurting along those lines.

so? (0)

crossmr (957846) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285473)

He's a pretty shit doctor.
I've continued to watch in the faint hope that it will get better, and thankfully with a regeneration coming up, maybe..just maybe..

More accurate than Surrogate (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285495)

"Surrogate versions?" that's kind of funny when you consider the vast complexity of what you're actually creating. social media is a not-so-private index-able record of events and contacts in your personal life complete with timestamps, pictures, anecdotes and exacting degrees of separation to others -- added bonus is the illusion of privacy. It's hardly surrogate when you consider the social profile may actually be MORE accurate that the IRL version.

Actor is a geek status symbol? (0)

davydagger (2566757) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285539)


A fucking actor?

I think its time we give the hipsters the nod they aren't welcome here. Scene killers.

New Summery for you. (1)

sjwt (161428) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285563)

"Matt Smith, the current actor playing Doctor Who, doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, despite his geek icon status. He also worries that social media encourages us normals to have more outstanding view points and to express our selves rather the welcoming our new meta-media overlords" -I for one welcome our new Microsoft music playing overloads.

Actors (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285617)

Thank god we all listen to actors on how to run our lives... especially ones barely old enough to shave!

Sonic (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,8 days | (#44285683)

Doctor Wut?

Don't use non-MS products (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44285747)

So a piece of garbage bought and paid for by Microsoft makes a very public attack against competitors' products. Oh, I am so surprised.

Smith works for the BBC, which means he was vetted by MI5 before getting the job. MI5 actually has officers in every main BBC facility to vet staff. This should come as no shock, since the BBC was actually set up by the British government (long before the invention of practical TV) as a propaganda arm of the 'Empire', and a means to manipulate the native population of Britain. The BBC's foreign correspondents are all official members of MI6 (yes, they are actual spies for the British government).

Microsoft has extremely strong links with the BBC. Nothing excites Matt Smith more than the thought of Microsoft's Xbox One spy camera system in the bedrooms of millions of British children. Facebook and Twitter 'empower' people in a way that horrifies Smith (yes, I know that the owners of Facebook and Twitter are just as despicable as Microsoft, and use these services to track and monitor users too, but at least their services give something useful back to the users).

The BBC has a long history of employing some of the most repulsive people. Jimmy Savile was actually provided with private 'rape' rooms by the BBC at many locations, where Savile (with the full awareness of senior BBC management) raped and abused children and young people. Stuart Hall was another BBC mainstay who targeted every young person his BBC status gave him access too. Sadly, we usually have to wait 20+ tears to get past the 'rumours' to actually prosecution of the creeps the BBC uses to manipulate their audiences, and even then senior BBC controllers are so well placed, they ensure the government and the judges give the most lenient sentence imaginable to an offender whose crimes have harmed unthinkable numbers of people.

The so-called 'coalition' that rules the UK (actually just another front for the war criminal Tony Blair- every action by the 'coalition' has been to implement Blair's initiatives that he was unable to see through while visible ruler) has stated its intent to have the most authoritarian crack-down on the Internet yet seen on this planet. The main line of attack is to demonise the Internet continuously with a "think of the children" black-propaganda campaign. Matt Smith's repulsive pronouncements are a careful addition to this program.

Matt Smith, and the 'coalition' scum he fronts, have stated that the Internet in the UK MUST have a default version that is entirely suitable for use by children of all ages. Meanwhile, Smith's pay-master, Bill Gates, has created an Orwellian spy system designed to create a giant database containing the details of EVERY child in nations where Microsoft has influence. This database system has been created in partnership with Rupert Murdoch (Tony Blair's personal Goebbels) and institutes in the US with long links to eugenic projects.

QUOTE from Reuters:
The database is a joint project of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided most of the funding, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and school officials from several states. Amplify Education, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, built the infrastructure over the past 18 months. When it was ready, the Gates Foundation turned the database over to a newly created nonprofit, inBloom Inc, which will run it.

The database is a paedophiles dream. It contains intimate details about a child's sexual development, social development, and family background. Serial child abusers, like those constantly employed by the BBC across decades, know the key to getting away with child rape is picking the correct 'targets' in the first place. An understanding of the psychology of victimhood, combined with an examination of locations notorious for failure to active protect vulnerable families, means that child abusers can simply cherry pick likely victims from Bill Gates' database system. This is no accident. Gates is offering up the children of the sheeple as sacrifices to those that consider themselves part of the 'elite'.

For all the downsides of Facebook and Twitter, the use of both is an active expression of individual personal power by the user. In the UK, the establishment, led by the BBC, was so outraged by the attack on the system that usually keeps the sheeple voiceless, that insane numbers of prosecutions were made against the users of both systems for simply voicing opinions. The UK government actually passed a law that criminalises the public expression of an 'unpopular' opinion.

So crazy was this project, egged on by constant BBC reporting attacking all those ordinary people who dared to speak out, that the level of prosecutions actual broke the system, started creating a dangerous backlash by the sheeple, and led to an incredibly rare example of the UK establishment reversing a law. Now local prosecutors in counties across the UK are told to avoid harassing most people who dare to express their opinions, and the law is being changed (in the most minor way) to remove the immediate criminal status of holding an 'unpopular' opinion in public.

PS the BBC World Service, an official propaganda department of MI6, created the notorious mock-Muslim newswire you know as Al-Jazeera. This phony operation was built using people from the BBC's Arab desk, initially run by the BBC and MI6 in London, and now resides at the UK's intelligence facilities in Qatar, the major UK and US military base in the Middle East. Those of you that follow the propaganda on Al Jazeera know it has been at the frontline promoting the extermination of the secular governments in Libya and Syria, replacing them with extremist Islamic theocracies controlled by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the UK, USA and France.

Matt Smith is just another of the BBC's propaganda goons. Hopefully there is nothing worse in his background, but previously those working in high positions on the Doctor Who show have been unabashed at using their influence to gain 'access' to young fans. It would take a thousand Hercules and more to clean out the dirty 'stables' of the BBC.

Re:Don't use non-MS products (4, Funny)

Endovior (2450520) | 1 year,8 days | (#44286033)

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

Beware the advice of the successful, (2)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,8 days | (#44286023)

For they do not wish company.

"Despite" his geek status?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44286045)

I think you mean "fitting with his geek status".

You're not a geek, are you?
PROTIP: Owning an iDevice or any other kind of dumbed-down e-penis/e-tits does not make you a "geek". And no self-respecting geek would go even close to Twatter.

Geeks use IRC (duh), XMPP+Jingle+OTP, and e-mail over IMAPS and SSMTP, using GnuPG on top of it.
Frankly, we don't even need a phone. Just a portable computer. (An actual one, not a gadget implemented on a locked-down one.) Nobody calls us anyway.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account