I know a lot of people dismiss virtual relationships as invalid, but if they are real to the people involved what else matters? What does it mean to marry your love in Second Life while already in a committed relationship in real life? This is new territory.
Understood, but (to continue your Second Life example) I don't think that that requires a rethinking of "love". Whether or not that second relationship constitutes cheating is not a new problem. Would it be cheating if they were exchanging torrid telegrams instead? Only the delivery method of the expression of the emotions has changed. The nature of "love" (highly undefinable at the best of times) is no different.
I agree with that point; I think that is along the lines of why perpetual_lent expressed being unimpressed with the claims of needing to 'rethink' such concepts also.
I do believe that the net and even "Web2.0" specifically will require us to rethink some of the topics mentioned in the video. We've gone beyond sharing static information, beyond sharing dynamic information even and into sharing whole ways of viewing and sorting and interpreting information, and those methods themselves can be dynamic. Concepts of security, trust, ownership and privacy immediately come to mind as ideas that will need to be reconsidered. I just don't think 'love' is a candidate for redefinition due to these changes, any more than 'hunger' or 'pain' or 'contentment' would be. The methods we use to express and even potentially address each of those might change, but the nature of the sensations themselves are going to be the same.
I included 'contentment' in the list specifically so that all my examples wouldn't be purely biological in nature :)
Whether or not we need to more deeply examine 'love' isn't the question though - the question is whether or not the set of technologies collectively lumped under the 'web2.0' label are a driving factor for that need. I think a more thorough and scientific examination of the phenomenon would be highly beneficial. I thought so before web1.0, too ;)
I interpreted the video to be about next generation communication tech in general rather than web 2.0 in particular. Identity and privacy were interesting topics before web 1.0 too :)
On first viewing it struck me as an ad for a product. On second viewing, doubly so to be honest. Perhaps I'm too cynical. It's funny because on the one hand the creator of the video is actually doing what I wish more people would do - calling out the risks. However, the extent to which s/he oversteps the reasonable bounds of what ajax et al can actually affect renders what I would have normally greatly appreciated down to more meaningless yahoo-ing over the gadget-du-jour.
Identity and privacy were interesting topics before web 1.0 too :) 100% agreed. However, I do feel that differences in communication technology can have a significant effect on how data being communicated can and/or should be controlled, managed and tracked. I'm just unconvinced that post-web2 love would feel or make people behave any differently than pre-web2 love, regardless of how the people in question met or expressed their love.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical that telegrams allowed the same level of identity redefinition and romance that 3D immersive worlds do, but maybe I'm the one with a lack of imagination :)
Perhaps people with extremely vivid imaginations would be able to fall as deeply in love over telegram as is possible in a modern virtual sim? I don't know. Does the degree to which communications technology replaces the need for imagination provide a scale upon which there is a threshold that says 'beyond this point you need to rethink the emotions that are made possible by communicating over this medium'?
I think there is such a point only because of the sheer number of romantic relationships being forged in the virtual world today; it has become a real phenomenon worthy of study (for some people at least).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Whether or not we need to more deeply examine 'love' isn't the question though - the question is whether or not the set of technologies collectively lumped under the 'web2.0' label are a driving factor for that need. I think a more thorough and scientific examination of the phenomenon would be highly beneficial. I thought so before web1.0, too ;)
Reply
Reply
Identity and privacy were interesting topics before web 1.0 too :)
100% agreed. However, I do feel that differences in communication technology can have a significant effect on how data being communicated can and/or should be controlled, managed and tracked. I'm just unconvinced that post-web2 love would feel or make people behave any differently than pre-web2 love, regardless of how the people in question met or expressed their love.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment