I too don't like that people think you should know who they are. I mean, we all think we're kind of a big deal, right?

1 - tell the "truth" as best as I can recall it, construct it, offer it up.

1a - get the facts straight.

2 - Someone else's story belongs to them. Not me. Don't tell it without asking, nicely.

2a - unless the story is about a public figure, institution, or *ahem* a local newspaper that routinely violates rule 1a and sometimes rule 4 and often rule 5.

3 - My story intersects with other people's stories; if I need to tell theirs in order to tell mine, write out of a seeking for truth. Not vengeance, not oneupsmanship, not pity, etc.

4 - Don't make things up.

4a - Okay, you can make things up if your readers know you are making those things up. My dog, for instance, likes to "write" entries now and then. I trust my readers over the age of, oh, five get the idea that my dog (who does not yet have opposable thumbs) can't really type blog entries.

5 - Endeavor to write clearly, concisely, with a certain amount of flair that helps the subject come to life. Do not bore your readers.

6 - Remember that real people do read your blog.

6a - Forget this fact when you write.

7 - Never let praise or rotten tomatoes go to your head. Figuratively, that is.

I think that's it. As a writer first, and blog writer second or third, it's simply fascinating to see what happens when I put a piece of writing up and watch what happens. It either provokes no response, a trickle, a tiny flood, or some passionate responses on and offline.

Thanks for THIS post, Chris!

Now, does that mean we should privilege these kinds of interactions? (Some do, BTW!) Should we all take up boxing to feel what it's like to punch someone in the face and get punched? I don't think that's necessary or necessarily beneficial.

Each form of communication has it's benefits and drawbacks, but I don't think the "hard-wired" criterion of what constitutes a good medium is going to get you too far.

In the end, I come down on the "this sounds curmudgeonly" side. Perhaps in our lifetime we'll have direct brain-to-brain communication. Our brains will rewire themselves for it, or become rewired.

Sure, you can set your privacy settings however you want, but to those who you share everything with, it could very well outdo every previous form of interpersonal communication in terms of subjective "realness". How does that fit into your hierarchy of geniuneness?

As for myself (FWIW) the only ground rule I've set is to try to minimize embarrassing stuff for future potential employers to find. I may not be as deep into the internet as you, though, so maybe I just haven't had cause yet to get worried. But I think we have a fundamental difference philosophically on what constitutes reality and real human connection.
Adam

Chris

The presentation seems a little more sharp and cutting than the Chris Hardie that I "know." I agree with your overall point that modern media connections offer distorted glances into the souls of our compatriots. . . . But I am also a little skeptical that we get much more clarity in person . . . .

I think I could write a similar post along the lines "don't assume you know me just because you play ultimate Frisbee with me. . . ." But on some level, how we keep and manage any social situation - even one as lawless as the internet - reflect on who we "are."

Thanks for the thought provoking post, Chris.