There is a hint in this article that this particular computerized social network vendor is up to no good, and that millions of consumers buying into it are victims who don't know what they are doing.
How is this different from any other aspect of consumerism (music, soft drinks, big screen TVs, mass media, billboards, clothing, fat-free bottled water, saving whales, brown sugar)? Manufacturing desires and needs and then selling means to satisfy them is an ancient art. Are we going to have separate essays and indignations about every new scheme and product, drawing the "it wasn't like this" line usually 5-10 years into the past? And to what point? To educate sheeple? Right, that one will work. Or even better, to request governments to regulate evil social networks? I think this is the implied goal. Instead of allowing novel scams to take place, we should reinforce the current kleptocracy scam (aka "governments"). Somehow patriotism is less idiotic from soft drink brand loyalty? Well, I find new swindlers more interesting. > Facebook has 59 million users - and 2 million new ones join each > week. But you won't catch Tom Hodgkinson volunteering his personal > information - not now that he knows the politics of the people behind > the social networking site end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
