Sorry for all the talk about FaceBook (I promise this blog won’t solely be about it), but my FaceBook just decided last night to resurrect itself after three days of being offline. That’s right, my FaceBook account has become Jesus and should be treated as such apparently.
This was quite the scare to me actually. How much of my info is on these internets and how long does that info last? Is it truly dead and gone after my second deactivation? That information should be dead, but I guess that FaceBook keeps copyright control over it, begging another question:
If someone brings a lawsuit based upon the taking of information from one’s own facebook or twitter feed (I know it sounds incredibly sad, but I am sure that it will happen at some point), who legally owns that information?
The information itself is held on FaceBook servers, but it is the creation of the person the account represents. I know that logically the info is the property of the individual person who created it, but do we really think that we are that far off from FaceBook being able to lay claim to anything published on its servers to be its property? With the advent of the 14th Amendment and its subsequent empowerment by the Supreme Court, corporations have become legal human beings that can charge and be charged. They can lose some suits, but they usually just win.
This is all, at most, simply paranoid ramblings from a man whose account has recently been reanimated without his knowledge and without any notice, but one can never know the extent of corporate power in the current US legal landscape. Plus, the paranoia skyrockets when I see college guys in suits walking around like they were just hired to the ranks of some horrible legal firm.
—-Something completely different—-
Last night I was privy to an extensive Skype conversation headed by a few of the founding members of the School of Decreative Methodologies, an artist collective (I think) that is trying to change the language of all sorts of goodies. They are trying to shift the formal ideas on what is thought on the words “value” and “art” and “school.” At least I think that is what they were getting at. I’m not really sure; it was quite confusing.
However, it did start me on whether a task like that would be possible in any effect. It’s truly gargantuan to attempt to change the meaning of a word like “value” that has such a long history and a concrete basis. Art and school have taken on different meanings based upon the period of time and place that they are placed.
But value? It seems to have a completely different feel. It’s not a fluid word or even really malleable. The only way it changes is if one is looking at the physical or the emotional. But the word still can be traced directly back to “worth.” The word has this tactile attachment that one can feel and know. There’s something inherent in the word “value” that is traced back to worth. Something that has value must have worth. It doesn’t always have to be a monetary worth, but maybe a sentimental or emotional worth.
So what would they shift the meaning of this word to? I can’t even wrap my head around what value would mean if it didn’t have a direct tie to worth. Maybe they are simply talking of a shift from the main monetary definition of value to that of a more emotional attachment. Get away from the spectacle of value, if that makes any sense. But why do we need to do that? We understand that there are different connotations that “value” holds in different situations and there are probably other parts of the lexicon that can be used in order to express the feelings that they are trying to get across. Why the need to change what is already firmly entrenched in our minds? Instead, isn’t it more efficient to use the system we have in order to make changes that we need?
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions and I hope you don’t mind my constant rambling that ends in nothing but more confusion, but it is my way of garnering some sort of understanding. Who knows.