Will "The Circle" be unbroken?

Because I was going to see the author at an event in Fargo, I just read the 2013 novel, The Circle, by Dave Eggers, and watched the movie on Netflix (though the ending was completely changed and the movie kinda sucked, wasting a terrific cast).

It has been bouncing around in my head ever since, as the author no doubt intended.

In the novel (but not the movie), the Google/Facebook-ish tech company devises a 3 point plan of attack on human autonomy:

Sharing is Caring

Secrets are Lies 

Privacy is Theft

The first one is, of course, not especially controversial, though, in the book, this means recording your every thought and experience on social media, which is not only unhealthy but utterly pointless.

The third one is, of course, absurd, and, I think, the main point of the story is how dangerous this attitude is.

It's that middle one that I can't get past. 

In the very short time since I finished the novel, I have observed several things that reinforce this.

The first is in the book itself: Mae unknowlingly ingests a medical recording device that collects her vital signs and logs them so that her health can be constantly monitored. As a friend of mine observed,  IRL, health insurance companies would immediately use this information to deny coverage. That may be true now (though not when we finally get universal healthcare); however, it is also true what the doctor in the book asserts: that people would be healthier if their health indicators were monitored and care provided early and consistently.

Another impactful input came from, almost immediately after finishing the book, watching a 2017 mini-series about the gay rights movement called When We Rise, based on the Cleve Jones memoir by the same name, wherein one character notes to another that Harvey Milk believed everyone should come out and then life would be better for everyone. The damage of the closet is compellingly demonstrated throughout the series.

The most recent insight was listening to author Andrea Wang at the ND Library Association annual conference, speaking about the kids' book she wrote about her family, including the roadside scavaging her parents did when she was growing up. She literally cried while telling the story of the book. And, while she was terrified to be so vulnerable, she got incredible feedback on the book, won awards for it, and clearly found the whole experience therapeutic.

I repeatedly see and feel the truth of the observation that secrecy is equivilent to a lie, and frequently witness how secrecy (and lies) are hurtful, painful, and destructive. I also so often see how revealing the truth is almost inevitably cathartic and, basically, a huge relief.

However, of course, the point of the book is that sacrificing privacy leads to a dystopian nightmare. And, of course, I think privacy is valuable. And I know revealing ourselves should always be a choice, made by each individual when they are ready.

But, all that being said, I still believe that secrecy, and lies, are virtually always harmful, and that sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant.

passive aggressive bullshit

I don't have time to enumerate it all. But this is truly bizarre. I was on the planning committee for the annual library conference. As with all my committee experiences, there were a couple of people who really steamrolled everything and took over the conversations. But there was one thing I dug my heels on: there were a couple of loud voices for eliminating several regular activities, claiming the conference had too much to do. One of the things they wanted to get rid of was the after-dinner activities the first night of the conference. I pushed and pushed and pushed to keep it, incurring the irritation of two people in particular. Eventually (at a subsequent meeting), another person joined my side of the fight and we agreed to do all the work, so the other folks stopped insisting we eliminate it. 

Fast forward to the conference. 

After MUCH discussion, there had been arrangements made for some snacks to be available during the after-dinner activities. When we got back to the conference site, the snacks had been set up in the exhibit area rather than the ballroom, where the activities were taking place. I heard one of the main conference organizers comment on this as we walked by. But she did nothing about this. If it was me, I would have asked the hotel to move the food, or just taken a person or two with me and moved it myself. But I know I am perceived as pushy and abrasive, etc, etc, and I didn't have anything to do with the food, and I didn't want to take charge of something that wasn't mine. But she left the food there, and she never even told the people in the ballroom that the food was there, so they could go get it if they wanted it. What the actual fuck? My very ungenerous interpretation is that she didn't want these activities to happen and now she has the chance to make them a tiny bit less enjoyable. 

I don't know how to navigate this type of situation. My instinct was to grab the food, but I didn't want to give her and others like her a reason/excuse to fuss at me. Additional note: this same person interrupted my activity (a book discussion) by walking up and starting a loud side conversation with one of the participants, so I waited while they finished talking. Again, my very ungenerous interpretation is that she was trying to disrupt me, but maybe she is an oblivious rude asshole, as opposed to a passive aggressive rude asshole. Hard to know.

    

Guest complaint

What the absolute fuck? The guy says it's perfect in his comment, but complained about a smell in his review. I have no idea what he could be talking about. I mean, I live here, I would notice a bad odor. And he could have been a mensch, and sent me a private message, instead of marking down my public rating (on cleanliness AND accuracy ffs). Plus, I have no idea what needs to be fixed, so thanks for that. Some days, I wonder why I do this. Oh yeah, $$$.