A long review of the social network that digresses into the hacker sensibility

One thing that's relevant: very few "hackers" obtain really good, close friends early in life. I've been lucky to have found a few very, very good friendships in middle and high school, and very few since. It continually amazes me how shallow and disconnected most people remain for most of their lives -- I find myself coming back to old friendships constantly (in terms of thinking about how we relate to each other). For example, playing in a band in high school was educational. Being so intimate (in certain ways) with my friends to a point where we could play musically and make mistakes and recover through mere eye contact was quite an experience.

It's something that's difficult to replicate, especially in a field that's so disconnected from human contact. I really appreciated this article because it articulated something I've felt for a long time but haven't been disciplined enough to accurately reflect upon.

After finally getting through the whole thing (which took many installments over the course of two days, due to my schedule actually and not my poor attention span) I see how interconnected all of your ideas are and how the missed intimacy between the artist and hacker (and the irony there) only makes complete sense at the very end. Really fascinating stuff, the entire article.

However, I think where you really shine here is in your descriptions of what intimacy and signaling are, their connection, the role of play in both, and how because intimacy is so valuable, there can be no direct "signal" for it. That plus your close analysis of the first scene of The Social Network, would make a killer essay (although perhaps more about human psychology than the dystopia you're painting here).

I also would have liked to see more examples of places today where (and how and why) intimacy is already being undermined. I think we all have an intuitive sense of, "yeah, now we have lots of really shallow facebook friends instead of a few REAL friends," but that's usually about as far as most people go when making such an argument. Having a face-to-face, one-on-one conversation still feels quite a bit more personal than any computer-mediated communication, and I think most people would agree that it would be nearly impossible to create a real, intimate relationship without some significant personal interaction like that.

But why do we feel that way? Now that I've read your article, I think that (contrary to popular belief), it's not just that we can't tell when someone is being sarcastic on instant messenger. I think you've nailed it when you say, "Notice how relaxed and off-the-record exhange and role-play is becoming a more risky enterprise.  All your emails, your musings on your blog – even your google searches.  It can all be used against you." We NEED to have conversations that are transient, that we know no one else can ever listen in on. Plus, it's important to occasionally have one's full attention, and knowing that they aren't simultaneously having the same conversation with 9 other people (getting back to your whole theme of "intimacy takes time and is expensive").

As someone who has come of age with the internet, I kind of take it for granted that anything I ever type into a computer may be one day used to humiliate me (well, at least ever since it happened the first time, around age 11) -- I'm sure this has deeply affected how I approach trust, play, and intimacy.

I probably have lots more thoughts that will surface as soon as I hit "reply," but as I'm trying to keep this short enough that you read it, I'll stop here :)

But I think that spectrum of tinkerability shows the complete range of influences within the company, and could be a strength.

It's taking me a while to read in short bursts during work ("It's compiling.") but I'm determined to finish.

I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any explanation.

As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional, parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself.

I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without being part of it per se.

I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree, however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism.

> But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent.

Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y to be taken too seriously.