Meanwhile, objective reality doesn't actually care about anyone's opinions.
Not so fast…
In 1966 sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote The Social Construction of Reality. They asked, how do institutions actually arise? If an institution is essentially just a collection of interacting individuals, how do they come to appear as “given, unalterable or self-evident”? Berger and Luckmann argued that the objective reality of society, (i.e.,Durkheim’s “social facts”), is created by humans and human interaction, through a process of habitualization. If society and its institutions seem to be objective social facts that exist externally to individuals, they become that way through an ongoing process of creation and forgetting. Habitualization describes how “any action that is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be … performed again in the future in the same manner and with the same economical effort” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Not only do people construct their own society, but they accept it as it is because others have created it before them. Society is, in fact, “habit.”
Offline identity, medical conditions, sexual orientation, relationship problems, and so on.
If they're completely out of the blue (not related to any posts) or I have a preexisting negative relationship with the person they might constitute harassment in which case there's less of an obligation not to pass them on.
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Going back to the OP of the other thread, while the actual body of the PM was not shared, the naming of the individual was. I would have felt better with words to the effect: "It has been brought to my attention that what I may have written could have been considered a personal attack." No name needed to have been mentioned. A short explanation could follow, and life could have gone on. For me, the line was crossed when a name/avatar/AKA was shared.
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Surely you don’t mean that? If it were the case that any word, sentence or paragraph you’ve written would be private, then your posts in this thread would “private.”
Can we at least all agree that if someone pms me with private details, I ought not to then pass on those private details by pm to another shipmate or a host with those private details unless there is some overriding justification to do so?
That seems to me an important point, which is being lost in the way the question is being framed.
@pease, if you’re going to make your argument simply by dumping a big quote, could you at least please identify the source from which you’re quoting?
Apologies. It was on The Social Construction of Reality by Janice Aurini. The idea of the objective reality of this place being created by an ongoing process of creation and forgetting, of it being “habit”, seemed apposite in response to RooK's post.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
The thing is, all you’ve already said has left me confused as to exactly what your position is. I was hoping that a simple sentence or two would clear my confusion.
@Doublethink, I searched the 2002 hosting and admin manuals saved deep in the bowels of my computer, and there is no discussion of private messages in them. I don't have anything later -- I deleted a lot of stuff when GDPR went through.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
@Doublethink, I searched the 2002 hosting and admin manuals saved deep in the bowels of my computer, and there is no discussion of private messages in them. I don't have anything later -- I deleted a lot of stuff when GDPR went through.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
That's an excellent question, and I think I was personally shying away from it because I'm not sure I'm qualified to say exactly where the line is.
Verbal abuse or evidence of harm is one big one. If you think the sender is somehow injuring themself or yourself, that's a pretty clear alarm.
Figuring out a good definition of "harm" is probably the next challenge. And I think in general I would trust the hosts to be responsible with handling these matters with confidentiality. I would also hope that shipmates have enough sense not to put anything that sensitive or potentially harmful onto the ship without being aware of what they were doing.
Comments
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Going back to the OP of the other thread, while the actual body of the PM was not shared, the naming of the individual was. I would have felt better with words to the effect: "It has been brought to my attention that what I may have written could have been considered a personal attack." No name needed to have been mentioned. A short explanation could follow, and life could have gone on. For me, the line was crossed when a name/avatar/AKA was shared.
Surely you don’t mean that? If it were the case that any word, sentence or paragraph you’ve written would be private, then your posts in this thread would “private.”
Sounds good to me.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
And thanks for the citation.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
That's an excellent question, and I think I was personally shying away from it because I'm not sure I'm qualified to say exactly where the line is.
Verbal abuse or evidence of harm is one big one. If you think the sender is somehow injuring themself or yourself, that's a pretty clear alarm.
Figuring out a good definition of "harm" is probably the next challenge. And I think in general I would trust the hosts to be responsible with handling these matters with confidentiality. I would also hope that shipmates have enough sense not to put anything that sensitive or potentially harmful onto the ship without being aware of what they were doing.