it’s troubling that skype is the new IM program of choice for a couple reasons, and those are the same reasons i don’t use skype unless forced.
- skype redid their interior architecture recently to give the feds better access. they deny that that’s what prompted them to do so but regardless of why they did it, it’s done, and it will make things a lot smoother for the spooks. i don’t like this.
- their API is locked up and useless to anyone but Official Skype App™ and that means you can’t use skype with multiclients like Adium or Pidgin unless, heh, you have the skype app running at the same time. this renders the entire exercise moot.
there’s really not a lot anyone can do about trending services, of course. you have to use what everyone else is using or you don’t talk to anyone, period. we couldn’t do anything to “stop” Facebook, we just had to wait it out. the only reason i mention it at all is that it’s a little troubling that the service with the worst API and grossest pig-pandering is the one getting preferential traffic. i imagine eventually i will have to have Skype running constantly all the time like everyone else does, but I certainly don’t relish the idea.
I need to get around to setting up Pidgin or something similar; it’s probably not fair of me to stick entirely to using PChum when it seems to be so much of a pain in the crack to use on Mac and Windows.
Don’t tell anyone but I actually love PesterChum because it’s built on a completely logical IRC backend. It’s also just delightfully nuanced despite (or because of) being a completely independent project. I’m not a big homestuck, myself (I dig the comic but don’t partake in the fandom at all) so when I found out about it I was absolutely shocked to discover that the fucking homestuck fandom of all things had produced an almost completely functional and extremely amusing IM client. I used it for several days on my PC but of course I don’t know anyone else who uses it as a regular IM client, so it was just a toy.
It did spur the creation of a chumhandle, though: I’m hoistedPetard. blehehehehe
Pidgin is alright but is frankly a mess compared to Adium. The file browser still looks like Linux and is near impossible to use. I avoid it whenever possible. Adium is pretty good and supports IRC out of the box, which I like. It also has excellent Direct Message support on the AIM network, which i use a LOT because I send art and pictures to people. And I don’t want to do it via a file transfer that they then have to go dig up and look at in a folder somewhere, I want it to appear in the actual IM window. I’m not sure any other protocol supports this particular function
Frankly I’d like to see a return to IRC, which would appeal to the walled garden motif of whatever iteration of the Internet we’re living right now (3.0? 2.5?). I’ve started a very traditional members-only, locked-down clubhouse of an IRC room just recently and have been enjoying it a great deal. It’s also become clear that Ustream uses IRC for all their chats, meaning I guess I just sort of idle in SWEATSHOP’s chatroom all the time now.
edit: what would be REALLY PERFECT is if someone took PChum and turned it into a functional multiclient. I mean that is blue sky bullshit right there but still.
edit2: here i made us a chatroom: http://toxoplasm.org/chat
@10 months ago with 96 notes
#skype #chat programs #internet #privacy #et cetera #homestuck #pesterchum #blog #instant messenger
I have been reading books on philosophy and psychology and fanfiction on the web. I’ve also been spending a lot of time reading blogs on the internet, ranging far and wide. These things have become tangled and I think they are very much related.
My son has a friend that lives three houses away. He will text my son and arrange internet game playing. He won’t walk down the street. He won’t even use his voice on the phone. A text is preferred. I have been trying to understand this behavior, by reading.
This essay, like many of the other considerations of “the internet” by people older than 30 (or people raised in the manner of people older than 30), fails to check its very premise: that the internet is “not real”. That writing a text is somehow, magically, less authentic than, say, passing a note in class. Or even whispering in someone’s ear. That those of us raised online can’t decipher tone or feeling in even the most offhanded typing of our friends and loved ones. That our refusal to “use our voices on the phone” makes us emotional, social, even experiential cripples.
I understand the urge to simplify the new social experience this way, and at a first or even second reading it appears sound, but I deplore the almost flippant conclusions reached by our loving, well-meaning, but ultimately uninformed elders.
This assertion—that the Internet, text messages and so on aren’t “real”, that they somehow “don’t count”—doesn’t stand up to examination, except in the very biological, reductionist sense. If you stand on the belief in a sort of “chemical communication” between adjacent physical bodies, pheromones that somehow sign off on every human exchange face-to-face, stamping a big rubber [AUTHENTIC SOCIALIZING] on every bit of small talk, then sure. But what this steps over entirely is the fact that every mode of communication has its accompanying set of falsehoods, either in projection or perception of the message.
If a friend walks up to me in the street and invites me to a party the next day, my perception of the message benefits (in clarity) from the data contained in their tone of voice, their posture, and their cadence (for example), but suffers from the distraction of being outside, of being in a hurry, of having to pee, of being bored (these are my failings) and also of their lying to me, of their having a cold that makes their voice strange, of their being distracted by their own simultaneous experience there on the street. Each of these facets of the exchange are traded for ones of equal weight when the conversation is moved online. My friend sends me a text, Facebook message, wall post, or Tumblr ask, inviting me to a party. At once I am examining their message for clues—the lack of, or inclusion of capitalized letters, the use of specialized argots within our shared social group, the use of emoticons, injokes, or HTML formatting.
My ability to read—and misread—these clues is as robust, if not moreso, than when confronted with the same exchange in person. The message remains the same. My methods of reading it, of deciphering it, flow from medium to medium, but in no sense is the party invitation “less real” for having come via SMS.
The other issue here, which benefits the digital alone, is the ability to master your own expenditure of time. I just finished reading Ada again, so I’ve been considering Time for days. While my friend approaching me physically on the street is intrusive, in that we both must compromise whatever we are doing in order to fit the exchange into a sort of tyrannical bit of gristle between our separate Timestreams (not that my friend is intruding on me, or even I on them, but more that we both must see the chance to have this exchange about the party invitation, and then both must take it simultaneously in order for the conversation to occur, like two world leaders turning two keys on a nuclear launch authorization, or even a shuttle crew waiting for the right orbital window) which, briefly, allows us to talk. If my friend had sent the invitation via SMS, the message would remain perfectly preserved as it left their fingers, and crash on my shores intact, waiting for me there whenever I most wanted to read it, when I could devote the best eyes to it, when I could think about it most clearly. Digital communication, if not freeing us from Time, certainly lets out our leashes a bit.
To put it another way, digital communication allows my friend to communicate through time with me, which goes a long way towards making sure the meeting of minds occurs when both participants are at their best.
The original essay touches on this, but frames it as an “inferiority complex” issue, which leads inevitably to bullying and trolling, and that children like the author’s son cannot “handle” that the friend that lives a mere three doors down is “too real” to interact with. I think this is not giving the kid enough credit, when he’s clearly smart enough to take advantage of the flexibility in the new (and no less devoted) friendships of his generation.
And truly, the same things were said of the telegram, the telephone, the letter, the parchment, the clay tablet, the cave painting…
@1 year ago with 82 notes
#socialization #internet #tldr #technology #grim cyberpunk future #moms just dont understand
@1 year ago with 15024 notes
#Fuck the mentality that 'slacktivism' gets nothing done #internet #online #tor #politics #keep signing online petitions
Okay, I like that Tor is being spread around, but this idea that online petitions do nothing and isn’t taken seriously needs to get out.
You are aware that without online petitions that SOPA would have been voted on and passed, aren’t you? You’re also aware that with enough pressure with online petitions governments have backed down on other things. Believe it or not politicians do pay attention to online petitions and emails sent to them, it’s just that you need the numbers behind them to have someone pay attention. And if you’re telling people that their voice doesn’t matter in a petition then of course less people are going to sign it and of course there’s going to be less power behind it. You are hurting your own cause by telling people that their petitioning doesn’t matter. Stop telling people that that doesn’t matter.
In fact this entire thing saying that stuff online doesn’t matter is ridiculous. When people sign petitions online they are still saying that if their representative is going to support something they will also pull their support from when they vote too and will vote for someone else. They are still fully capable of boycotting things when they say they will online.
Why are you acting like doing something on the internet is useless when we have evidence to the contrary?
I would LOVE to see some proof. If online petitions actually work I’m going to have a much better day.
This is the only support I’ve seen for online petitions that cites any examples, and it’s on a blog run by an online petition company who stands to gain or lose substantial amounts of ad revenue from whether or not people use online petitions. And all the examples there do not actually include data that cites the petitions as effective. EG, no policy-makers specifically pointing at the petitions as effective, etc.
Slacktivism is poisonous because it’s placebo activism.
EDIT: And the SOPA shit “worked” because it was backed by giant corporations and organizations who threw the weight of their money against it. Wikipedia leaving GoDaddy alone was insanely effective. Google putting shit on their front page was effective. Wikipedia and Tumblr blacking out was effective.
(Source: 3liza, via haveheartbeast-willtravel-deact)
Pavel: 1 day ago
Ruska and I were actually talking about it in terms of claims adjustment. Example:
Email Status: Rejected
Modifiers: 12, 14, 18, P1NZ Applied
Explanation of Claims Handling:
@2 years ago with 7 notes
#fetish #fetlife #losers #internet
10: Penis pictures
11: References to riding the “love rocket”
12: Looks like a albino hippo
13: Clowns involved in profile picture
14: Insufficient punctuation for word count (1 per 15)
15: Insufficient line spacing for word count (1 per 30)
16: Excessive spelling errors for word count (x>4 per 20)
17: Use of the word slut/bitch/whore out of proper context
18: Long creepy fantasy
19: Long creepy fantasy involving livestock
20: Typed using google translate
PQIZ: Message forwarded to proper legal authorities.
PUZT: Message forwarded to proper group for mockery
P1NZ: Applicant put on “feed to sharks in Pavel’s secret volcano lair” waiting list
Q2FP: Applicant’s address forwarded to CDC, to ensure stupidity from source is not contagious.
ZZZZ: Orbital weapon ion projection cannon retasked and moving to strike position on email point of origin.
666: WHERE WE ARE GOING WE WONT NEED EYES TO SEE