We Live In Public – Official Trailer

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

On the 40th anniversary of the Internet, WE LIVE IN PUBLIC tells the story of the effect it is having on our society as seen through the eyes of the greatest Internet pioneer youve never heard of, visionary Josh Harris. Award-winning director, Ondi Timoner (DIG!), documented his tumultuous life for more than a decade, to create a riveting, cautionary tale of what to expect as the virtual world inevitably takes control of our lives. Please visit the website: www.weliveinpublicthemovie.com for more information.

Commentaires

noodlesmealey says:

Man, am I ever relieved I was starting to think EYE was the sociopath. Thanks Josh.
Now I know what particle accelerators and silver cords are for.

0016danielle says:

i got this movie from the library and it’s interesting…

savagecabage says:

are you trying to say im a flatlander or is that just a random statement your telling me? its hard to tell

alexkworld says:

A Flatlander doesn’t know he lives in Flatland.

savagecabage says:

« lions are tigers used to be kings of the jungle » . . wtf??? they still are.
pfff this guy is funny, yea the stupid ones will end up in zoo’s, it doesnt mean where all headed there

TheMoreWeKn0w says:

the end of the experiment is at the start of the experiment. the fact that the individuals would allow themselves to be recorded doing such things just shows everything about our society. how most of the things they do on camera are for attention rather than real. just as status updates and comments on facebook are.

BenGarwin says:

Attributing behavior solely to individuals’ innate characteristics and not accounting for any social enviornment drasitically misreads the Stanford Prison Experiment. It’s helpful to remember that in the SPE, there were no innate differences between ‘wardens’ or ‘prisoners’ yet their behavior diverged wildly from one another. Their roles (group identity) overpowered individual agency.

BenGarwin says:

Attributing behavior solely to individuals’ innate characteristics and not accounting for any social enviornment drasitically misreads the Stanford Prison Experiment. It’s helpful to remember that in the SPE, there were no innate differences between ‘wardens’ or ‘prisoners’ yet their behavior diverged wildly from one another. Their roles (group identity) overpowered individual agency.

Trystera says:

(cont.) So, beyond that number, people just become sorta… ciphers. You know they’re people with the same kinds of needs and ideals as your best friend, but it’s just hard to keep that in mind. To want everyone to know us, without knowing them — to have attention from others without paying attention to them — is just selfishness.

I think some people are just being raised, lately, to aspire to Fame and Wealth, not Respect or Strong Character. It’s not media to blame, but poor parenting.

Trystera says:

We all do? Even the introverts? Personally, fame sounds horrifying!

Popstars are emblematic of the issue. The flip side of that coin is, « we want everyone to know us, without our having to know everyone. » You can’t forge a meaningful relationship with thousands of fans or followers – in fact, per the hypothesis of Dunbar’s Number, our brains can scarcely understand our interrelationships when the number of people is higher than 230 at most. (cont.)

puddiipuddii says:

It seems we are driven more by having attention than logic or love.
Look at popstars now. Singularity is inevitable because we all want everyone to know us.

doqueiros says:

Le Tigre - Slideshow

southbanktrousers2 says:

« they were shitting in public…and people ate it up »

Leticiiia says:

what is the music track appearing at the first 30 seconds?

filmester says:

gr8 movie!

PVPMETHODS says:

@Trystera take the many casts of Survivor as an example. Not one of their members possessed the requisite features to be compared to an average person? They may not be members of the poor, who can’t afford to sacrifice that time and still hope to survive the next month. But they’re certainly not of a different breed to those who are ‘secure in themselves’ (which remains an obscure concept). The way they acted on Survivor can be representative of the way anybody would have acted on Survivor.

PVPMETHODS says:

@Trystera attention-seeking? they were offered a free recreational and social banquet on condition that they let themselves be filmed. they weren’t willing to give up everything, they were willing to give up a month of their privacy, and many of them expressed profound distaste for the cameras and interrogation tactics.

You’re basically leaving no room for the possibility that someone who submitted to being on camera wasn’t an attention-seeking derelict.

Trystera says:

The sample set here was « the set of people who would agree to live in conditions like this. » So, yes. It’s not that the cameras ‘sucked the identity out of’ anyone; those are your words. They were already attention-seeking and willing to give up everything else for this. The connection’s not that abstruse: Almost by definition, someone who’s secure in him/herself won’t be as swayed by popular opinions or herd mentality, and will keep to their own standards of behavior and ethics.

PVPMETHODS says:

I’m not so sure about that. Do you really think that Quiet was comprised of a sample set completely devoid of self-worth and solid identity?

Is it more likely that cameras ‘sucked the identity out of’ all of these (randomly selected) persons, or that the identifiable removal of their privacy and freedom caused the distortion of their behavior.

If you chose the first option, you should probably explain to everyone how a strong sense of identity is at all linked to controlling yourself

KRACKERWORKZ says:

LOVE IT!

OvObscure says:

I had to shut this film off after 20 minutes, Harris is just too much of a fucking narcissist for my taste.

MRTUMNUS6 says:

this is one of the best movies Ive seen. it completely messed with my mind and I love it. Pretty shitty trailer though. I don’t know why trailers have to tell the whole story, when giving much less will better the trailer and the viewing experience.
trailers are supposed to intrigue and a really good trailer can easily be made out of this great movie.

Ramiro Ceballos Arenas says:

Cool

Ramiro Ceballos Arenas says:

Cool!!!!!!!!!!

owrunow says:

« What happens when we value attention more than logic or love? »

So spot on, I think this is one of the best comments I have seen on you tube.

adrianandshane says:

just watched this film tonight.
BONKERS!!!

17R3W says:

I used to love Pseudo network!

240 seconds of gaming!

machellacoachella says:

well don’t u think it’s bad that fb sells ur personal information?

EyeConicRed says:

3:45

EyeConicRed says:

I wonder how people would react if they were to find out that they’re being watched against their will???

How important is everyone’s privacy to them….ultimately? To me its a non-negotiable (Not really) issue and I hope it is as well to you all. Cherise it because it might not be around for much longer.

GL.

dancingbearfilms says:

Actually, I deactivated my account because I didn’t want to turn into a nutjob like him. I’m still off FB almost two years later. Couldn’t be happier. There’s nothing wrong with Facebook, like there’s nothing wrong with most drugs. They’re only bad when you abuse them. Facebook was an addiction for me when I was on it. I had to stop cold turkey. Actually, the movie isn’t about a nutjob who thinks the internet is taking over… now I’m wasting my time on Youtube. Becuase I’m drunk.

Sneezlebob says:

You deactivated your Facebook because some nutjob thinks the internet is taking us over?

MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

montagmonta says:

Free romantic dating site online naneedj.info

Écrivez un commentaire

*