Isn't it amazing how selective we are about the information we put f ourselves online? Sometimes we're even selective about the information others put up of us online!

It's understandable.

I read (I think it was on The Times) that this teacher, who'd recently got her job (or it was her first job, or something... I wasn't that interested at the time) and got fired because the Board of Education of the school she worked for found a picture up in MySpace of her with a pirate's hat and a cup (Just a cup! We don't know for sure what's in it), labeled "drunken pirate".

Sure, on the one hand you have the BOE thinking "We don't want a "drunken pirate" teaching in our shcool. How is that going to affect the kids' educaion? What are the parents going to think?" They have an obligation towards the school and it's understandable.

However, which adult (excluding recovering alcoholics, Muslims and any other person who's in a situation that completely impedes them from drinking) doesn't indulge in the odd glass of wine, or a whiskey n the rocks, or a weekend beer? Just because you drink doesn't mean you're a disrespectable member of society. I mean, for goodness sake, I'm sure The Queen drinks at social events, if not more often (and yes, I am refering to HM Elizabeth II).
Here we have a young woman (mid to late twenties) who has just taken a major step into the big pool of adulthood, but still has not yet rid herself of the feeling of uncensorship you just have to throw away the moment you grow up, being slammed, splashed and sucked into the kiddie pool.
It was a dress up party. Those are the typical twenty year-old celebratory methods. Afterwards, people gradually develop a taste for a glass of wine at home, or a martini in an art gallery, or a quiet pint at the pub. It was a normal, festive event. Did it go out of hand? Did she actually get drunk? Did she even look drunk in the picture? What if they found out that the cup was filled with nothing more than (drum roll please) pineapple juice (Oh! the horror!)? And don't come up with this crap simply that the people in the PTA or the BOE or any of those organisations never drank to excess in their life, because there is no such thing.

This one case just serves to illustrate how the internet is this one big interview machine in which you have to constantly put your best smile out, whilst trying to not seem like a figment of someone's imagination. Worst of all, the scrutiny never ends! Remember: this lady was sent away AFTER she was interviewed and offered the job.

Yet, sometimes it's good if people hold back. There have been times where I've browsed the "Nudes" galery, here in dA, only to find what, to me, was gratuitous nakedness (I couldn't even classify it as nude) and bare-crotch shots. It was at these times that I wished people would have a bit of censorship. Yes... penises are art. [side note for those who are thick enough: I was being sarcastic]In the absence of self-censorship, we happily have the dA mature content censoring programme. I'm very grateful dA.

However, we still have occasions where self-exposure online might be helpful. There is an ongoing project called the Personal Genome Project (PGP) (see Postagene.com in New Scientist Magazine, issue: 25th October 2008, p. 6), which aims to find links between genes and diseases. Once in the Project, a person would be required to submit genetic samples and their complete medical history. This could lead to a revolutionary study on the weight genes have on the development of a disease, and, by elimination, also the role environmental factors play in the whole process.
However, is gene scanning acceptable? Let's hypothesise: say there's a link between intelligence and a certain gene. If the admissions office in a school or scientific institution decide to check this gene in two candidates, who have the same qualifications and just as good a reputation, what would they find? Would they find a difference? If they did, should it affect their choice? Isn't it like scanning a foetus for the extra chromosome in pair number 21 to see if it is going o have Down's Syndrome? One of the scientist's daughter was afraid that "potential boyfriends might google his genome before asking her out on a date."
I empathise here. Before you even meet someone, you're checking their genome. It's like making a police background check. Yet, I feel people should be reminded of a naturally occuring gene-scanning process: PHEROMONES! That's right, every sniff you take, you're assessing the person in front of you for favourable genetic content. If someone smells nice, it means that they have a different genetic code to yours and tat your future children have a high chance of having stronger immunitary systems! You're gene-scanning your date as you spea over a up of coffee. The only difference between pheromone sniffing and PGP is that PGP is a more conscious process and therefore more complex and more likely to err. Why? Because our brains were built for the process and already do it automatically.

Think about it.



On another note: Having major esprit d'escalier. Hate it.