The value of forgetting

NY Times: The Web Means the End of Forgetting

Not long ago, I spent some time talking about privacy and how people react to having their information spread around. It was brought on by an article that focused a lot on companies. Since then the NY Times did a huge piece that delved into this even more, and it raised even more issues on thus topic.

The above article starts out with the story of a woman who was not allowed to take a teaching job because the interviewer had seen a picture of her drinking on Facebook... from years before. The author delves deeply into the issue of the fact that not only is our information online, but also that the internet doesn't "forget." You can have a drunken wild night in college, and years later those pictures will still be around when you apply for jobs.

Many methods of dealing with this were discussed. In short, I think most of them are worthless. For one, this issue really isn't new. How many politicians and celebrities have been "nailed" with a decades old photo that someone dredged up? The fact that the internet holds this information does indeed make it more available, but it doesn't create a new problem.  The idea that we can "control" information is such a faulty one as I talked about before.

The one person I agreed with heavily that was quoted was Samuel Gosling, the University of Texas, Austin, psychology professor who conducted a study on Facebook and online profiles in comparison to real-life personalities. He says- like I mentioned before- that we need to stop trying to split ourselves. It is unrealistic to have "a home or family self, a friend self, a leisure self, a work self.” As he told Facebook, “I have to find a way to reconcile my professor self with my having-a-few-drinks self.”

As a society we need to remember that we are each one person, and trying to be several is never really going to work. If somehow in the last century we have mastered the technique of pretending to be so very many different personalities, then I praise the internet's capabilities for tearing down that ridiculous practice.

When we realize that our separate "lives" are merged, these issues suddenly becomes much less of a big deal.  “You see your accountant going out on weekends and attending clown conventions, that no longer makes you think that he’s not a good accountant. We’re coming to terms and reconciling with that merging of identities.”

More control is far from what we need. What we need is for people like the interviewer mentioned in the story to come to grips with the realities of life. Most teachers drink alcohol or have at one point in their lives. Trying to hold this past to them is insane. The cliche, yet ever true saying of "Those in glass houses..." At what point did we decide that we should hold people to a higher standard than we do ourselves?

This article talked a lot about how damning the information is since it can't be forgotten. I say that forgetting is overrated. If we forget something we can't learn from it. We all have our embarrassing moments. Maybe what we need is more ability to remember the facets of our own lives when we are trying to condem others. When we forget something we can't learn from it. When we let others forget we disable them from helping us or being our teachers.

I have always held that knowledge is power. Sometimes truth and the past can be painful, or embarrassing, but in the end it is always worth it to have the information. Going through these experiences and remembering them is what helps us grow as individuals and as a society. I for one choose not to forget, but to ensure that I remember.

Blocking the Hate

Yesterday, a conversation was initiated that talked about whether or not hate speech should be restricted at colleges. Today, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the ban on funeral protests citing "technical issues." Many organizations are working to get the language re-worked and fast-tracked through the legislature. It is interesting because I am not sure that I agree with this. Many of the organizations that approve of the ban are ones that I support, but with this issue I find myself more in disagreement.

I understand the pain and hardship that people feel when they are laying a loved one to rest, and how to have people there expressing hate is certainly a horrible thing. On the flip side, I have always been a proponent of free speech. Yesterday though, during the college discussion, this very astute girl brought up something that I never thought of in regards to hate speech. She said, "I would rather have their hate up front, than hidden." When it is right in front of you, you can face it and move on. Hate that is hidden and festers is what leads to violent hate crimes, and greater unexpected backlashes.

This insight lends a strong psychological argument to an already impressive list. The slippery slope of what and who we can restrict is certainly scary. With college hate speech, the answer is clear to me: Restriction bad. If anything restricting it only makes it that much harder when those who are blindly hated go out into the world and find themselves unprotected. The issue with funerals is slightly different. You are intruding into a personal event. But what can the ban say? How far away is ok? Who can they ban? Again, there is risk of creating a dangerous situation. Though I feel strongly for those who have faced this, I wonder if legal action is really going about it the right way.