Skip to main content

Social networking isn't private

Social networking sites like Facebook let people keep in touch where and when they don't have immediate contact. And that's great. Despite bizarre comments from people who should know better that using such sites can damage brains or cause cancer (see Ben Goldacre's comments on the subject), I'd suggest the bolstering of people's personal networks is a good thing. Once upon a time we'd all meet in the village shop or pub and have a natter. That's not practical for many these days - Facebook et al offer a useful alternative.

However, there does seem to be one danger here. Because of the immediacy and the apparent security of having a password, it's easy to equate such meet ups as being like a private conversation in a locked room. It's not. They are at best semi-public - remember, you will see the comments of friends of friends. It's very easy to write something intended to be private and to be embarrassed to find it has become public.

There have been well publicized cases of employees making comments that their employers found unsuitable - for example the Virgin staff, sacked for calling their customers chavs. Another darker example has recently surfaced. An IT adminstrator has been sacked for breaking into students' Facebook accounts and copying the nude photographs the students had posted of themselves there.

Of course the administrator's actions are reprehensible. But you do have to ask what the students thought they were doing. Unless, of course they would also be in the habit of popping into the local shop or bar naked.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...