There are two aspects to the ebook that seem to me profoundly to alter the relationship between the reader and the text. With the book, the reader's relationship to the text is private, and the book is continuous over space, time and reader. Neither of these propositions is necessarily the case with the ebook.
Well, this is a paragraph worth discussing in detail! I don't buy it. Unfortunately, the rest of the article tries to provide evidence to these points, and again, for me the post falls short.
The ebook gathers a great deal of information about our reading habits: when we start to read, when we stop, how quickly or slowly we read, when we skip pages, when we re-read, what we choose to highlight, what we choose to read next.
This is certainly a concern from the perspective of a Library Media Specialist taxed with maintaining patron privacy. It will be interesting to see how libraries handle this with the publishers once the publishers are truly on-board with selling ebooks to libraries. In the meantime, if you want your privacy with an ebook, turn off the sync features and turn off the WiFi on your device as you read.
readers remaking the text, much in the manner of the fan reaction to The Phantom Menace, The Phantom Edit.
This is a concern for the future, for this author of this post. eBooks could also become self aware and set up a bot net to take over the world's tablet devices and start WWIII, but I'm not going to start losing sleep over that, and I'm not going to stop reading ebooks out of fear of this either. ;-)
This is a good point. Digitizing the history of books is going to be important and best NOT left up to money-orientated corporations like Google or Amazon. The Library of Congress, Project Gutenberg, and other not-for-profit groups with goals of preserving the future. Publishers need to get on board with digitizing their pasts as well. Want to read Catcher in the Rye or To Kill A Mockingbird in ebook format? Tough.
Could the e-reader support texts that could be read only if more than one person were reading it – and what issues of trust might that raise?
If I want to watch a movie that was never popular enough to be put to VHS or DVD or Digital Download, then I can't. Who's archiving all the old movies? The TV and Film industries are just as guilty as the eBook industry.
"In a consumer society," Ivan Illich says, "there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy." Today's culture tries to spare kids the pains of sibling and peer rivalry, but does so by teaching them to channel their envy into the language and expectation of fairness—and a reallocation of goods that promises to redress their emotional wounds.
A better way to integrate fairness and favoritism for kids is to show how opportunity and outcome are part of a process.
Potentially refutes the promise of Facebook "friends," that the friends you have are a myth, a misrepresentation of the label, a palliative for our need to accumulate the most of social capital in comparison to our friends.
Anyone should be a candidate for friend status, but few will be admitted to the elite club. Why few? Because favorites (friends) can be created only by spending time together, sharing experiences, and immersing themselves in each other's lives—and time, sadly, is a finite resource.
The little prince of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's classic feels heartbroken when he realizes that his beloved rose is just a common flower—intrinsically equal with all other roses. But then he comes to understand that she is special because he loves her and "because she is my rose." The wise fox enlightens the little prince: "It is the time you have spent on your rose that makes your rose so important." Favoritism and fairness are deeply irreconcilable, and until we figure out how to square that circle, I'm sticking with my favorites.