skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Once in a while, I google my name (I won't even bother hyperlinking google). Unlike most of the words and phrases i type into the google search bar, I type in my name (first name + maiden surname; nickname + maiden surname; maiden name only; first name + married surname ... i suppose you can imagine the succeeding permutations) and then click on 'search' to see what 'others' would see if they typed in my name. By 'others' I am referring to either and/or any of the following:
1) my exes who I'm either trying to avoid, guiltifying (the word actually exists in slang lingo), or "regrettifying" (poetic license employed here)
2) my exes' girlfriend or wife who I'm trying to "envify" (poetic license employed again)
3) future employers I'm still considering, especially those that are particular about doing background checks (e.g. the DFA, the NICA, etc.)
4) my parents, relatives and other conservative persons who I wouldn't want to learn about my "extra-curricular activities" (like being at the wrong place at the wrong time doing wrong things)
5) my friends/colleagues who I'd like to impress (especially high school classmates)
"As if", right?
The reason I do this is because I'm one of the persons listed above - although the other way around. Yes, I also type in the name of my exes, my exes' girlfiend/wife, my students, my parents and relatives, and my friends.
I hate it when their names are too common (too many hits).
I love it when I uncover gossipworthy info.
I hate it when I see bad stuff about my family (like when I had to contact one of my mom's students to delete a blog entry because of certain "classified" info in it).
I love it when I "cyber-get-to-know" people through blog links, exams passed, etc.
I get excited when impressive information about me appears (like passing the LAE haha)
I get paranoid when I realize that I've posted my contact information over the internet. Or information that tends to show a "dark" side of me. Like when I posted a copy of one of my hate letters (consumer complaint) in my blog that I actually sent earlier. After I deleted it, the letter can still be accessed through cache.
I'm actually paranoid about this class blog and this particular entry.
My name is not common. Any person who types in my name will be linked to either me, or to Salma Hayek. Wait, I'm not claiming to be as famous as Salma Hayek. She's famous, and links about her appear unless my name is placed between quotation marks.
I think googling myself in the net says a lot about my ego (and my state of mind). How common is it anyway?
*pauses to check Google, types in "google own name"...*
Yep. It's not uncommon (So this blog entry must be really boring. But it's almost done so I'll post it anyway.). Anyway, for related topics about googling one's own name, check out this blog entry.
Do you google your own name? If you haven't, maybe you should try it now.
Salma F. Angkaya
Entry #2
My partner posted a blog about digital dignity and proposed that it can be hurt. This digital dignity is supposed to be connected to a digital ego which exists virtually. Hence, one can digitally hurt someone without really hurting the real person (my deduction).
On his Facebook page, comments have been posted about this ephemeral (in my perspective) concept. I argued that digital dignity cannot exist apart from the real person represented by the digits. Moreover, one cannot argue that this dignity is inherent in that digits hence deserved to be respected.
His argument: In MMORPGs, there were instances that a character can be raped. Also, you may be great rivals online but when you see each other in person, so long as you don't know each other's character names online, there exists a separate ego in that "real environment" (my deduction from his arguments). But online, they may be hurting each other's digital ego or dignity.
But what is interesting for me is this: There have been fora on Universal Declaration of Human Rights and New Human rights include Digital Dignity. In one blog also, it says:
What amazes me is the total lack of concern regarding one’s basic ownership of one’s personal data. Why are we not paid when someone reads our data, stores our data, translates it into something compelling to advertisers and other third parties, and then sells it at incredibly high profit margins? Why are we not paid when a spammer sends to our email address or Twitter account unwanted emails about idiotic advertisements?
With that he proposed that persons and data are not free hence there is a need to recognize digital dignity. But still, I don't see any rational analysis that will prove that it exists. Don't we first prove its existence before we even talk about rights that arises from its existence thus the need of protecting it?
On a final note, this is what I commented:
This is stimulating--having triggered too many concepts: ego, digital, dignity, and reality. Oh, and the concept of a digital hurting, which is a witty oxymoron, methinks. In my opinion, there is no dichotomy--whether the ego is in the real or in the virtual environment, because it relates to only one person who is the point of reference. Not because a person is creating many personalities in his or her environment means that there is a need to distinguish such person. Hence, the hurting part cannot be digital (environment) but personal (source). If it is personal, it is not the dignity of the digits that is hurt but the person. My point being, there is no barrier between the digits and the person that represents it.
If my premises and conclusion are valid, then it will bring the train of thought to what Ms. Lorelyn mentioned about the perspective you will take depending on one's knowledge of the person, who contains/owns/has the ego, which can manifest in different environments. It cannot translate to a personal ego and a digital ego because it will not stand the rational/philosophical analysis (i.e. if p then q). That's like schizo. :p Unless we can apply dissociative identity disorder (DID) online.
In my humble opinion, when they say that defriending someone online hurts their digital ego, it really means you are hurting that person and not his or her digits.
Paulyn Duman
Blog #12
(for September 3)
Source: http://trendsupdates.com/good-ridance-arthur-levinson/
