Sharing sucks

There has been a huge surge of companies telling us to share everything. Share your photos, share your tweets, share on facebook, share experiences, share virtual gifts.



It seems companies are desperate for us to share our things with everyone ... but not their things. DRM is fiercely fought over. They don't want us sharing music, or films, or games. They don't want to share a damn thing with us. But want us to give away all our content, information and possessions.

I hate sharing. As a kid I never shared anything. Who would look after my toys better than me? It makes me instantly adverse to 'sharing' on the advice of these companies. I'd happily share a song with someone. That costs me nothing. But oh no. Don't share music, that's stealing! But when I pick up the bill they are happy for me to share a coke.

Sharing is about getting you to give something away. And that benefits these companies as you either pay twice or provide content they can sell.

Its about time people woke up to what sharing is about. Its getting you to give permission to have people take your assets. Companies don't do it. Neither should you. So f**k you Zuckerberg! 

Does anyone have a moderate view on sharing or is it a 21st century evil?

It's a pain in the ass if nobody else wants to do it because then you're down 50% of your stuff and everybody else gets a boost. But if everybody shares, then everybody stays at 100% and gets some diversity in their collection, as well as naturally kissing enough ass that you create some allies for yourself.

ITT: Thork learns that marketing is bullshit.

I'm just fed up of being told to share everything. I'm not sharing anything! Its all mine! 

Holy fuck I agree with you!

Whenever a large publicly traded corporation asks me to do -anything- I immediately think "fuck off" because how in the hell could they ever have my best interests at heart?  It is almost contrary to shareholder interests to have the consumer's best interests at heart.  All the lovey dovey Age of Aquarius bullshit bandied about is to build trust so that loyalty can be created.  That is it.

 I think on a non-consumer basis, this kind of sharing can be really good, especially when it is about crowd-sourcing projects that might not get off the ground if you tried to get support in a traditional way, but social media in general strikes me as utterly two-faced when presented as an innovation and evolution in societal interactions.  It is just a change in medium, but all the same rules and politics apply.

I don't really care anymore, but when I was a kid, I was more inclined to say; "But... why can't well have one?". Of course; money, effort, uniqueness (or whatever) etc. etc. clearly stopped such things, I see that now. Anyway, companies just want to increase sales, obviously, it isn't sharing they give a shit about, it's money. This is just another campaign.

ITT: FES takes a troll thread seriously.

ITT: FES takes a troll thread seriously.

Let me SHARE some advice with you.

Get the hell out of my thread or I'll Frank Zappa the shit out of the next one you give a crap about!

Quote from: Parsifal on July 29, 2013, 01:10:04 PM

ITT: FES takes a troll thread seriously.

Let me SHARE some advice with you.

Get the hell out of my thread or I'll Frank Zappa the shit out of the next one you give a crap about!

Stop trolling PR&S with this rubbish.

Mods, please move to AR.

Quote from: Ævan on July 29, 2013, 01:11:54 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on July 29, 2013, 01:10:04 PM

ITT: FES takes a troll thread seriously.

Let me SHARE some advice with you.

Get the hell out of my thread or I'll Frank Zappa the shit out of the next one you give a crap about!

Stop trolling PR&S with this rubbish.

Mods, please move to AR.

Oi! 

If you aren't interested, move along. But I put this in here because it is about SOCIETY. I thought about IT but its broader than that.

If you aren't interested, move along. But I put this in here because it is about SOCIETY. I thought about IT but its broader than that.

It's not about anything in particular. The subject and your conclusion say it's about sharing, but all of the rest of your OP focuses on specific uses of the term "sharing" which are intended to encourage spending more money. This does not equate to sharing in general being a marketing ploy or a bad thing, and you know this.

Quote from: Ævan on July 29, 2013, 01:13:59 PM

If you aren't interested, move along. But I put this in here because it is about SOCIETY. I thought about IT but its broader than that.

It's not about anything in particular. The subject and your conclusion say it's about sharing, but all of the rest of your OP focuses on specific uses of the term "sharing" which are intended to encourage spending more money. This does not equate to sharing in general being a marketing ploy or a bad thing, and you know this.

I think you are missing the point of my thread. Multi-national companies have taken something that is supposed to be a gesture or expression of friendship between people, and are exploiting the hell out of it. I find this particularly intrusive because sharing is something people's parents tell them to do when they are kids. It teaches compassion and respect for other people's things.

And here we have companies telling you the same thing your parents told you. On the surface, it would seem that they are looking out for your best interests. But what they are actually doing is exploiting a genuine act of kindness and goodwill so as they can make a massive killing from it. I find this morally abhorrent hence I made a thread.

I wanted to know if other people felt companies where doing this in a benign way to try and reach out to us and interact with us, or whether they also thought it was as calculating as getting you to buy more coke.

I am going to try and buy products that I'm not encouraged to share. I'll start with Pepsi. Can't tell the difference anyway.

I'll add that you don't see companies saying "Share a BMW. Share an IMac". They are asking you to share things you may view as low value assets like a drink or piece of digital information. This is suggesting that you'd be mean not to comply. It isn't very expensive. Its not like asking you to share a car.

It plays on a number of deep social emotions and exploits people.

Yes, large companies tend to exploit people. This is nothing new.

Yes, large companies tend to exploit people. This is nothing new.

Apathy isn't an attempt to understand how though, is it? 

Quote from: Parsifal on July 29, 2013, 01:36:23 PM

Yes, large companies tend to exploit people. This is nothing new.

Apathy isn't an attempt to understand how though, is it? 

The only thing I'm apathetic about is your inclination toward stating the obvious.

Thork, stop sharing your thoughts.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Thork. 

So, Thork's post about an opinion he has concerning a bunch, bot not all, of companies is allowed here in PRetS...?

I'm just trying to gauge what is allowed where.

So, Thork's post about an opinion he has concerning a bunch, bot not all, of companies is allowed here in PRetS...?

Why wouldn't it be? 

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:23:45 PM

So, Thork's post about an opinion he has concerning a bunch, bot not all, of companies is allowed here in PRetS...?

Why wouldn't it be? 

I dunno. I'm staying away from making assumptions. Just trying to get a feel for what's allowed.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2013, 03:28:39 PM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:23:45 PM

So, Thork's post about an opinion he has concerning a bunch, bot not all, of companies is allowed here in PRetS...?

Why wouldn't it be? 

I dunno. I'm staying away from making assumptions. Just trying to get a feel for what's allowed.

If you didn't have a reason for thinking it wouldn't be acceptable why did you feel compelled to make a post pointing out that it is? 

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. A Thork thread derailed on the first page to not be about Thork.

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. A Thork thread derailed on the first page to not be about Thork.

I know, my head asplode.

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. A Thork thread derailed on the first page to not be about Thork.

It's amazing how Thork wasn't the subject of the derailment, I agree.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2013, 03:28:39 PM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:23:45 PM

So, Thork's post about an opinion he has concerning a bunch, bot not all, of companies is allowed here in PRetS...?

Why wouldn't it be? 

I dunno. I'm staying away from making assumptions. Just trying to get a feel for what's allowed.

If you didn't have a reason for thinking it wouldn't be acceptable why did you feel compelled to make a post pointing out that it is?

Okay, it wasn't entirely unfounded. Thork's observation was about some (but not all) companies and their tendancy to pervert the word 'share' to suit their own needs. This is allowed in PR&S because it's got to do with society.

My observation about some (but maybe not all) flat-earth advocates and their tendancy to blatantly ignore observations contrary to their their. This wasn't allowed in FEG even though it was an observation/question about/to the FES.

But I don't want to make this thread about that. I'm just trying to gauge what's allowed and what's not.

I hope you don't go around trying to hijack every thread into a rant about FES. This forum really isn't that hard to figure out.

I hope you don't go around trying to hijack every thread into a rant about FES. This forum really isn't that hard to figure out.

Space Cowgirl, meet my post:

I don't want to make this thread about that

I think corporations are talking about sharing to call back to Smalltown, America, where you really knew your neighbors and wouldn't mind sharing a cup of sugar. It's like recalling the 'good old days' (you know, when you could judge a person by the color of their skin and women were consigned to do housework all day ... okay, those days may not have been so good).

If you didn't want to make this thread about that, you wouldn't have posted in it in the first place.

Corporations are just adopting social media lingo in their ads. Share on Facebook, share on Twitter, share with your friends.

If you didn't want to make this thread about that, you wouldn't have posted in it in the first place.

Goodness, are you serious? I didn't want to post anything, but Roundy the Truthinessist repeatedly asked why I was getting a feel for what was allowed. I answered, and since then you've seemed to want to make this thread about that. Do I need to go through it step-by-step for you?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2013, 03:58:55 PM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2013, 03:28:39 PM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 29, 2013, 03:23:45 PM

I'm just trying to gauge what is allowed where.

Why wouldn't [Thork's post] be? 

I dunno. I'm staying away from making assumptions. Just trying to get a feel for what's allowed.

If you didn't have a reason for thinking it wouldn't be acceptable why did you feel compelled to make a post pointing out that it is?

*answers question*

But I don't want to make this thread about that. I'm just trying to gauge what's allowed and what's not.

Understand? Comprehend?

Corporations are just adopting social media lingo in their ads. Share on Facebook, share on Twitter, share with your friends.

That's a good point.