The Internet as a Simulacrum of Life

I've been unknowingly developing a theory that the Internet is a simulacrum of life for some time. I wish it weren't this way because I prefer more to 'exist' online than I do to interact with people in "real life." However, after examining the evidence, I've come to the conclusion that not only is the Internet a simulacrum of life, it's an entirely unacceptable one. I'll refer to my theory as the "SOL (Simulacrum of Life) theory" in this post.

1. Rampant self-censorship on the Internet supports the SOL theory.

71 percent of all the users surveyed engaged in some self-censorship either on new posts or in comments, and the median self-censorer did so multiple times.
71% of Facebook Users Engage in 'Self-Censorship'

Do you engage in self-censorship on this forum?

If everyone is engaged in self-censorship online, no Internet communications can be trusted. As far as I'm concerned, this point alone proves the SOL theory.

People need to understand the implications of this issue. If everyone is self-censoring, we don't know who anyone truly is.

2. Most of the message we try to communicate in writing is often lost for various reasons.

Communicating through writing is an artificial way to communicate. Any artificiality that's extant online supports the SOL theory.


www.youtube.com...

Is there any point to arguing online?

3. Huge numbers of people are paid to be fake online.

Trust in information on the web is being damaged by the huge numbers of people paid by companies to post comments online, say researchers.
Fake posters can "poison" debate and make people unsure about who they can trust, the study suggests.

Some firms have created tens of thousands of fake accounts to flood chat forums and skew debate.

LINK

This is another point that I believe proves the SOL theory. It's a simulacrum by definition.

4. Huge numbers of people are "trolling" online.

New research finds that many Internet trolls are ‘everyday sadists’

It's not just that Internet trolls are a simulacrum of life; they poison the well. When decent people get hurt by Internet trolls, they tend to trust others a lot less.

5. Without face to face interaction, it's hard to establish trust.

'Online friendships' with the opposite sex, are they feasible?

It's much easier to trust someone when you can see their body language as they're speaking than when you can't. This is another issue that proves the SOL theory to me.

6. Counter-intuitive and unproductive rules hamper genuine relationships.

The Rules of Etiquette for Private Messaging at ATS

The rules of etiquette for online relationships seem to be entirely different than those for "real life" relationships. Consider the thread linked to directly above. The best advice for private messaging at ATS was given by two different posters in my opinion:

"Don't expect a response."

If I don't expect to get a response, why would I send the message?

What are we doing? How have we deluded ourselves? When in real life would you send out messages not expecting a response? Cold calling?

In this context, it's fitting. That just supports the SOL theory.

7. Writing an opinion about something is not taking action.

Could the Philip K. Dick story "The Days of Perky Pat" reveal our current situation?

Many are so confused by the simulacrum of the Internet that they believe that getting online and writing about how upset they are about something is the equivalent of taking action against it. It isn't. It's a pure simulacrum of acting. This is another point that proves the SOL theory for me.

I realize my theory is controversial. The following thread discusses that issue.

Do you refer to non-Internet activities as "real life"?

if the internet had a A.i would it reply too your post ?

technology and its growth are cyclical
given enough time

Humans do find real connection
through technology or without it

good theory
heard of Marianas web ?

a reply to: Profusion

1st, excellent thoughts and post. Honestly, in reading this post I had alot of seed thoughts firing of my own, but your premise is a good one.

I saw an interesting correlation with the position newspapers and the televised news had/have. Obviously not as interactive for all parties as the internet, but you really di cause me to pause and ponder a variet of social and control oriented mechanisms in a new light, for that I thank you.

Im going to consider a bit longer, before engaging further and Ill try to keep within the context of the internet in future responses.

Great post, I love to stretch.

a reply to: Profusion

And here is what the people who envisioned the internet think about what the internet has become.

Yet for people such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, and Vinton Cerf who is often referred to as one of the "fathers of the internet", Doctorow's comment cuts right to the heart of the problem. The internet has not evolved in the way they had envisioned.

Phys.org - What's wrong with the web and do we need to fix it?

The line of argument is that there are massive companies that attract people to them and there the participants loose the freedoms that The Creators (hehe) had hoped would be the internet. They say that TORs is probably better and more in-line with their original conception.

So if the internet is not really "the internet" does that support SOL? (we can start, today, and name it like NASA! We are currently SOL-1 and tomorrow is "SOL-2" etc!). Just wondering because IDK. I read this earlier and had been pondering and thought I would share.

For those of us that weren't sure...

A simulacrum (plural: simulacra from Latin: simulacrum, which means "likeness, similarity") is a representation or imitation of a person or thing. The word was first recorded in the English language in the late 16th century, used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god.

So...you are saying the internet is a god...might be...certainly isn"t a painting or statue...Yes?

Anyone got a problem with the use of simulacra as used in this post?

Cheers

originally posted by: kibric
heard of Marianas web ?

I know that it's rumored to exist. My understanding is that there's no evidence for its existence, is that right? Why did you mention it?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Profusion
I saw an interesting correlation with the position newspapers and the televised news had/have. Obviously not as interactive for all parties as the internet, but you really di cause me to pause and ponder a variet of social and control oriented mechanisms in a new light, for that I thank you.

I believe David Icke's "sheep policing the sheep" concept belongs here. What do you think?


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Profusion
So if the internet is not really "the internet" does that support SOL? (we can start, today, and name it like NASA! We are currently SOL-1 and tomorrow is "SOL-2" etc!). Just wondering because IDK. I read this earlier and had been pondering and thought I would share.

You really opened up my mind with this. The thought just occurred to me that the film "THX 1138" could be an excellent metaphor for living vicariously through the Internet. Any thoughts on that?


www.youtube.com...

ETA: I watched the clip directly above with the Internet in mind, and it made me laugh. The clip is tragic in its normal context. But, when you think of it as representing what we're all doing online, I find it be hilarious.

originally posted by: JaMeDoIt
For those of us that weren't sure...

A simulacrum (plural: simulacra from Latin: simulacrum, which means "likeness, similarity") is a representation or imitation of a person or thing. The word was first recorded in the English language in the late 16th century, used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god.

So...you are saying the internet is a god...might be...certainly isn"t a painting or statue...Yes?

Anyone got a problem with the use of simulacra as used in this post?

Cheers

Merriam Webster's main definition of "simulacrum" (directly below) is a lot simpler than the one you used above. I'm proposing that the Internet is not real life but an image of real life. I would like to add, that may be perfect for narcissists (who tend to love living vicariously through the Internet) because their lives are simulacra of real lives to begin with. Simulacrum is their natural habitat, so to speak.

simulacrum

: image, representation
www.merriam-webster.com...