Random IM musings...
Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:27:28 -0700
Don't forget the added disbenefit that most IM's now provide a level
of advertising spam and nusiance that either a) didn't exist in the
MUD/BBS space, or b) If it did exist it was controllable (IRC). I
don't know how many times my various IM's have been flooded with 'Hot
Teen SEXX!!!! See these sluts as they really are !!!! XXXXXX' or
variations on a very tired theme.
At least with me, social situations no longer exist the moment a new
face begins with 'A/S/L'..
Friday, August 24, 2001, 8:26:40 PM, you wrote:
ALB> Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
ALB> Received: from xent.com (email@example.com [188.8.131.52])
ALB> by mail.tstonramp.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7P3NR812303
ALB> for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
ALB> Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
ALB> by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
ALB> id 3E48B294010; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
ALB> Delivered-To: email@example.com
ALB> Received: from mithral.com (watcher.mithral.com [184.108.40.206])
ALB> by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 265EF29400F
ALB> for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
ALB> Received: (qmail 642 invoked by uid 1111); 25 Aug 2001 03:26:40 -0000
ALB> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
ALB> From: "Adam L. Beberg" <email@example.com>
ALB> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
ALB> Subject: Random IM musings...
ALB> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
ALB> MIME-Version: 1.0
ALB> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
ALB> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
ALB> Errors-To: email@example.com
ALB> X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
ALB> Precedence: bulk
ALB> List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
ALB> X-BeenThere: firstname.lastname@example.org
ALB> X-UIDL: HUk!!0FE"!ggi!!>9##!
ALB> So I was chatting with my roomie today about how my "buddy lists" on the
ALB> many systems I frequent have shrunk over the years, as systems have changed
ALB> and dumbed down.
ALB> And I ponder the following...
ALB> IM systems are inherantly less of a social system then the old BBS/MUDD/IRC.
ALB> By social I mean putting people in the same "space" that wouldn't be
ALB> The old:
ALB> The "archaic" systems, where you were basicly in a big chat room with
ALB> everyone on the system, when you looked at your "buddy list" it was everyone
ALB> on the system. Some systems supported a friends list where you could put
ALB> maybe 10 of your best friends on a list to be highlighted, but you still got
ALB> the whole list. If someone misbehaived, the admin punished or booted them
ALB> off, so the system stayed friendly.
ALB> The New:
ALB> Here is how I see people using IM - they add their friends and family and
ALB> classmates to their buddy lists, and talk to them online. The search
ALB> features basicly allow people to seek out people just like themselves. The
ALB> only social thing is the chat room, where females are quickly driven off by
ALB> straight men, and straight men are quickly driven off by the gay men - it's
ALB> damn hostile within milliseconds. There is no "punishment" mechanism (or
ALB> admin). Since social situations are nonlinear, it's preaty much guaranteed
ALB> to remain this way, anyone decent being driven off in a hurry.
ALB> So basicly the new has enhanced the ability to talk to people I already
ALB> know, and completely destroyed any social mechanisms. Has anyone else
ALB> noticed this?
ALB> - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg