Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: [ on 12:21 PM 2/8/2008 ]
This situation could have easily played out in a non-public space
following the same logical course, but exposed to a public list after
the the social context was better understood. In 20-20 hindsight, this
seems better. Given my preference for transparency over opaqueness
this is perhaps not going to be my first reaction, nevertheless
something I should mull over.
I would think it's a question of context. Or, as silk.lurker Danny
O'Brien put it, a question of register [1].
Allow me to strongly recommend the post - it's very insightful on the
topic(s) of what is appropriate and where, which seem to be what is
at issue here as well.
See here:
The problem here is one (ironically) of register. In the real world,
we have conversations in public, in private, and in secret. All
three are quite separate. The public is what we say to a crowd; the
private is what we chatter amongst ourselves, when free from the
demands of the crowd; and the secret is what we keep from everyone
but our confidant. Secrecy implies intrigue, implies you have
something to hide. Being private doesn't. You can have a private
gathering, but it isn't necessarily a secret. All these
conversations have different implications, different tones.
Most people have, in the back of their mind, the belief that what
they say to their friends, they would be happy to say in public, in
the same words. It isn't true, and if you don't believe me,
tape-record yourself talking to your friends one day, and then
upload it to your website for the world to hear.
This is the trap that makes fly-on-the-wall documentaries and
reality TV so entertaining. It's why politicians are so weirdly
mannered, and why everyone gets a bit freaked out when the
videocamera looms at the wedding. It's what makes a particular kind
of gossip - the "I can't believe he said that!" - so virulent. No
matter how constant a person you are, no matter how unwavering your
beliefs, something you say in the private register will sound
horrific, dismissive, egotistical or trite when blazoned on the
front page of the Daily Mirror. This is the context that we are quoted out of.
But in the real world, private conversations stay private. Not
because everyone is sworn to secrecy, but because their expression
is ephemeral and contained to an audience. There are few secrets in
private conversations; but in transmitting the information contained
in the conversation, the register is subtly changed. I say to a
journalist, "Look, Dave, err, frankly the guy is a bit, you
know. Sheesh. He's just not the sort of person that we'd ever
approve of hiring.". The journalist, filtering, prints, "Sources
are said to disapprove of the appointment.".
Secrets have another register. They are serious (even when they are
funny secrets). We are both implicated when we share a secret. We
hide it from the world. Secrets don't change register - when they
are out, they preserve their damaging style.
On the net, you have public, or you have secrets. The private
intermediate sphere, with its careful buffering. is shattered.
E-mails are forwarded verbatim. IRC transcripts, with throwaway
comments, are preserved forever. You talk to your friends online,
you talk to the world.
Udhay
[1] http://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2003/10/13#1066058820
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
