Relationship 2.0: Living Online Doesn’t Need to Be Life Online
by
on July 31, 2008,
By most accounts, people wouldn't think I'm a very private person. I'm online most of the day. I blog in several places. I'm active on most social media sites. Most people are aware that my husband is also online and on Twitter and FriendFeed, and that I have four children and that my youngest is a huge fan of Seesmic. So it would seem I'm pretty open in that regard.
Anything revealed, however, is surface-level. I don't use my children's real names. I don't discuss any of the real-world issues that my family faces for the most part. I have an anonymous personal blog for venting and anything that I write about my kids. l try very hard to keep my professional life professional, and that includes its existence online.
So I find it curious to find so much of other people's lives online. Revealing children's names and lifestreams is obviously a parent's personal choice, but I'm talking about multi-page articles dissecting relationships and Ignite presentations announcing break-ups. In the quest to mimic the culture of celebrity prevalent in Hollywood, Silicon Valley seems to believe that the lack of personal privacy that comes along with celebrity is a way to become a weblebrity.
Am I too old-school to comprehend this new culture of oversharing? Or am I right in wondering that if some of this younger generation has children later, having detailed information about mommy or daddy's prior relationships on the never-ending archive of the Web might not be the conversation you want to be having?
On last night's Comedy Central program Louis Black's The Root of All Evil, Black refers to the cult of weblebrity bloggers:
"It used to be that in order to become a newsman, you would at least put on pants and leave your house. That all ended shortly after Al Gore invented the Internet and someone posted the first weblog… because why be a pathetic loser in private when you can exhibit your worthlessness to the entire world?"
Black may be onto something. He usually is. What differentiates the professionals from the amateurs to the people outside the echo chamber is the ability to put a work-focused face to the world while keeping your personal issues at home. Maybe one of the reasons that Web 2.0 and the tech blogosphere don't have more credibility is the tabloid focus that results in this oversharing.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
Svetlana Gladkova
Opensource 
Michael Fidler 
Shh…. they’ll stop airing their dirty laundry online, then what will we have to laugh about?
There’s always plenty of people willing to air dirty laundry online. It’s just depressing when it seems to run parallel with work.
dirty laundry is too obvious to know, per each of us set of values, it to share or not, but there are so many other things.. in the “gray areas” where i ask myself..”do I want it public?”
Ah, the perils of transparency. The points you make here are spot on, and interestingly they echo a very in-depth conversation we had at Seesmic yesterday afternoon. (In fact, I found this blog post thanks to the colleague who initiated the topic of discussion.)
As someone who, like you, lives her life at a relatively high level of transparency I cannot agree with you more about the nature of how some people seem to define what it means to be open. Put simply, and as I remember hearing said by one grandparent or another, there are just some people in this world who don’t have the good sense that God gave a goat.
Put even more simply - just because you CAN do something, doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD … It’s so easy to bare all … but for goodness sake try and use some discretion. There are topics about which I’ve never written, spoken or otherwise vented publicly. Will I ever touch those subjects in an open forum? Perhaps, but you can be darn sure that it will only be after deep and thoughtful reflection.
We live in a remarkable time. A time in which everyone and anyone can now find a way to express themselves and have a voice. This is wonderful. But that should not degrade, deride or disrespect basic principles of civilized behavior.
What? is there a life offline too?
Naor, I still think there are some things that are iffy in my book, but the idea of putting my ENTIRE life on line just holds no allure. I don’t need to have everything online.
Agreed, I’m very cautious about what parts of my life end up online. You have my wheels turning for a post, thanks
So they say, Luigi.
Any time, Jason.
Cyndy - if it’s true you’ve broken ties with this scam-tastic joke of a website, I’m very happy for you and the others who walked.
Hmm, this is an interesting take on the story, and not uncommon (the archetype seems to be “sheesh, why do people share so much, it’s so offensive to my more modest sensibilities!”).
The beautiful thing about the web is that there are so many web pages and so many chances to click the “I’m feeling lucky” button on Google that if you really don’t care to experience someone else’s story or experiences or personal revelations, you really don’t have to. I wrote more about this (and related thoughts) here:
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/07/30/so-open-it-hurts/
I’ve decided to recant some of the rest of my comment as I don’t think there’s really much to say here, except to acknowledge that we simply have different experiences and values informing our actions.