Am I just a Luddite?

[larrymohr]

Actually according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in my Vox a Luddite is "one who is opposed to especially technological change".

I would think that anyone who owned an eReader could not be called a Luddite.

What would I call someone who was not interested in having annonymous persons from undefined locations knowing all about their reading habits.

Sensible

[Elfwreck]

I could see a use in sharing reading passages with my friends, but not with the entire web-enabled world. (I don't have a Facebook account, so any social features tied to that would be useless to me no matter how much I was interested.)

I can see the social side of reading being good for book clubs and students, who are either reading the same books, or looking to each other for recommendations. But I don't see a point in open-crowdsourcing reading recs; my tastes and book-buying habits are a bit too weird for that.

I'm glad someone enjoys the social features some ebook sites offer. I don't believe they'll be the salvation some publishers & bookstores want... until a site can deal with sideloaded ebooks, the social side will be a walled-garden effect, and even Amazon just doesn't have enough market share for that. For example, people might want to chat about Dickens... but some of them will get their Dickens from Amazon, and some will get it from Gutenberg, and some from Kobo, and some from Mobileread; if the site only allows editions from one source, it's cutting out a lot of readers. The only current setting that can rely on people having the exact same digital editions are college-student bookstores... and those are readers who are mostly just tolerating a need for the text; they aren't going to stick around and discuss it again next semester.

[oldyellr]

Originally Posted by larrymohr

I would think that anyone who owned an eReader could not be called a Luddite.

I would agree. I believe the OP was mistaken in thinking themselves as a Luddite just because they didn't follow all the fads. Don't get technology and fads confused.

[Xennex1170]

Originally Posted by larrymohr

Actually according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in my Vox a Luddite is "one who is opposed to especially technological change".

I would think that anyone who owned an eReader could not be called a Luddite.

What would I call someone who was not interested in having annonymous persons from undefined locations knowing all about their reading habits.

Sensible

Maybe call them e-luddites.. A Luddite for our times..

[hidari]

I think the OP understood what a Luddite is....rather the OP was referring to being a Luddite in regards to the the "fads" the the media forces down your throat....ie. Social Networking.... Twitter....etc... many people are happy with an ereader that only reads,, email that is only email, a forum such as MR that is not connected to 500 networks at once.

Some of us don't want 500 imaginary friends or to know that Jose had a bagel with tuna for breakfast 22 minutes ago. Some of us don't want even need access to the net 24/7.....

Originally Posted by oldyellr

I would agree. I believe the OP was mistaken in thinking themselves as a Luddite just because they didn't follow all the fads. Don't get technology and fads confused.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by hidari

I think the OP understood what a Luddite is....rather the OP was referring to being a Luddite in regards to the the "fads" the the media forces down your throat....ie. Social Networking.... Twitter....etc... many people are happy with an ereader that only reads,, email that is only email, a forum such as MR that is not connected to 500 networks at once.

Some of us don't want 500 imaginary friends or to know that Jose had a bagel with tuna for breakfast 22 minutes ago. Some of us don't want even need access to the net 24/7.....

Well, I do not feel like anyone "forced" anything down my throat. I don't need to use Facebook and the like. And even though I'm constantly asked wether I had Facebook, was am member of X, Y or Z, did have Skype or anything like it, no "media police" ever came and forced me to use any of it.

Some people seem to feel like there was a need to have everything and be a part of every possible network, and they react kind of threatened if they a) don't have it or b) don't want it or c) both of it.

If you don't need what your reader offers, turn it off, don't use it or buy another reader. That's perfectly okay. Doesn't make someone a Luddite.

But it doesn't make another person someone running after every "fad" and share unnecessary things with "imaginary friends" either.

The Internet offers much more than what appeals or is useful to one person. And that's okay, too. Doesn't make the Web something that offers too much. At least I don't think so.

To each his own. No media police involved. All is good.

[paulsalter]

I am not sure I understand some of these comments, a few have mentioned why would someone want to share what they are reading with the whole world.

I use the Facebook sharing features and this only shares books I have read to my friends, no one else can see this info, for me this is very similar to telling someone about a good book I read that they might be interested in also

[Koboyashi]

Originally Posted by hidari

Some of us don't want 500 imaginary friends or to know that Jose had a bagel with tuna for breakfast 22 minutes ago.

[OT]Sorry for trolling, but I couldn't resist: bagel with tuna is my favourite food [/OT]

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by paulsalter

I use the Facebook sharing features and this only shares books I have read to my friends, no one else can see this info, for me this is very similar to telling someone about a good book I read that they might be interested in also

Are you sure of that? Facebook generally defaults to public, especially for those forced onto the "Timeline" (Thankfully, I haven't been cursed with that piece of crap. Yet ).

[paulsalter]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Are you sure of that? Facebook generally defaults to public, especially for those forced onto the "Timeline" (Thankfully, I haven't been cursed with that piece of crap. Yet ).

All the posting I do (including from apps) is set to just post for my friends, I can even go further and just make it available to certain friends if I wanted

Timeline is not too bad, the kobo app is pretty neat, it gives you stats about what you read, top authors etc (if you like that kind of thing), and as far as I can tell, people only see this if they visit your timeline

Also, the postings can all be set to private if you want, so I could have all my kobo stats there and I am the only one who can see them

[plib]

Originally Posted by hidari

Some of us don't want 500 imaginary friends or to know that Jose had a bagel with tuna for breakfast 22 minutes ago.

Agreed. In spades. I'm sure some people get a kick out of Facebook but it's never appealed to me. I did register a couple of false name/mail logins to communicate with a couple of organizations that would only allow you into their forums if you "liked" their facebook page - just how retarded is that? - but otherwise I have everything Facebook blocked in NoScript. Just the fact that Goldman Sachs just put half a billion dollars into them is reason enough for that, quite apart from their appalling business model.

A quote I saw somewhere regarding Facebook and the like - "If you're not paying for something, you're not the customer - you're the product"

Originally Posted by hidari

Some of us don't want even need access to the net 24/7.....

Umm..... I'm not sure I'd go that far though!

[idraw22]

hi,

I don't consider myself a Luddite, but I don't feel I gotta tell Facebook & Twitter which books I'm reading and how much either! UGH! Takes all the pleasure outta my reading too, when I feel like they're reading over my shoulder. But I guess they're everywhere these days.

[Brisen]

Reading has always been a social thing, at least some reading. People read books and discussed the ideas in them; that's what the classics are all about. That's what education is all about. Read, discuss, write. Sure, I'm not going to discuss every single book I read with all of facebook, but I've joined book club/book discussion groups online, and it adds a valuable dimension to my reading. If I can see what others are reading, that gives me an opportunity to strike up a discussion if it's a book that merits it. Someone sharing a favourite quote from a great book might lead me to read something valuable that I otherwise might have missed.

A lot of my reading is totally solitary, partly because I'm an introvert, partly because I don't know a lot of people reading the books I'm reading, and partly because some books just don't merit deeper discussion. But I get the most out of books that I've had a chance to discuss with other readers. The idea that we should all just be reading on our own because it's silly to share it with others is pretty depressing to me.