@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

SnotFlickerman

@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Our News Team @ 11 with host Snot Flickerman

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

that's how it works, right? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

Description: A three panel comic often referred to as “No take, only throw.” The first panel is a dog biting a toy with the caption “I want to be good at my hobbies.” The second panel is the dog looking angry and refusing to let go of the toy when a hand reaches out to throw it for the dog again, and it has the caption...

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I’ve seen it described as humans need some general ideas to feel like life has a point.

I’ve seen it broken down as autonomy (the feeling of driving your own destiny), mastery (the feeling of mastering a subject), and purpose (the feeling that what you’re doing “means something”).

Hobbies often fill the niche of “mastery” despite not improving our lives appreciably outwardly.

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

As a fisherman, I’ve been told I’m a Master Baiter.

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Fuck I loved that game like you loved my mom.

SnotFlickerman, (edited )
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Sorta like my mom?

https://i.imgur.com/WrbzRwF.gif

Privacy Concerns on Lemmy: A Call for More User Control (github.com)

I’ve been grappling with a concern that I believe many of us share: the lack of privacy controls on Lemmy. As it stands, our profiles are public, and all our posts and comments are visible to anyone who cares to look. I don’t even care about privacy all that much, but this level of transparency feels to me akin to sharing my...

SnotFlickerman, (edited )
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

And I believe privacy defeatism is unhealthy.

Is there such a thing as “perfect privacy?”

Because it seems that, to exist in society, is to give up some form of privacy by dint of existing in it.

You cannot stop yourself from being observed by other people, if they can see you. That’s just basic reality.

To be completely private, you would have to live in the woods and not interact with anyone or speak with anyone.

Is it defeatist to be realistic about the limitations of the idea of privacy?

As someone who has spent a lot of time seeking internet privacy, I’ve learned that more often than not I’m making myself more conspicuous. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on privacy, but it does mean that I’m going to consider its limitations.

EDIT: I’m reminded of an interview with Mark Hossler from Negativland. The interview is long gone from the internet (it was on an obscure website pre-youtube) but the center of it always stuck with me.

“If you really want full control of your art, don’t show it to anybody, keep it in your home.” His argument was Richard Dawkins’ argument for memes. The human mind functions by copying and mimicking. When someone else has viewed your artwork, they’ve already created an internal image of it in their memory. That memory is inconsistent with reality, but if they have a good memory, they can recreate it relatively easily (if they have similar artistic skills). You can’t really stop that kind of copying from happening, so the only way to fight it and keep “complete control” is to not share it at all.

Similarly, the only way to have complete control over your privacy is by not interacting with anyone at all.

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

One of my favorite Crow quotes, from my favorite Crow.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #