I hate MySpace, and so do you, I bet, even though if you're under 30 you probably at least have an account, if not an active MySpace life. If you're 20, you check it at least 40 times a day, if the public computers in the Georgetown Leavey Center are any indication. Sometimes, if you're 20, you post comments on the profile of your friend who's at the computer right next to you, making it very annoying for people who actually have something important to do on the internet, like check Apple's share price. Come on, people. MySpace is for dorm rooms.

I think this quote from a friend of mine pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole MySpace thing. To set the context, I'd just sent him a link to a cool human space invaders short on YouTube, which has since apparently been taken down by its cranky copyright owner.

I love the internet. YouTube is so much more fun than livespacebookfacejournal. It's just like "here's some shit, dig." No bullshit "friends" and crap, just music and art. I know the only redeeming value of MySpace is to get your music out there, but who cares when it hardly ever works right anyway? And, sure, I get the fact that the intraweb's beyond fucking huge now and that the need for multiple, more focused directories is inherent but still... At least MySpace keeps a lot of [morons] in one spot instead of shittin up the rest of my internet.

If you also hate bullshit "friends" and crap, you would probably also love these:

• isolatr
• snubster
• introvertster

But that brings up an interesting question . . . . What do you call a community made up of people who hate the notion of community? An anticommunity? An acommunity? A loose collection of nonaffiliated individuals? Not catchy enough. It’s the old “wouldn’t-be-a-member-of-a-club-that-would-take-me-as-a-member” problem. Or the set of all well-defined sets (sets that do not contain themselves). Is it well-defined? If so, then it’s a member of the set of well-defined sets, and it contains itself. But then by definition it’s not well-defined. How can the set of well-defined sets not be well-defined? That's like saying a moral authority figure could be immoral. Logically impossible. Just ask Ralph Reed.

Speaking of . . . See the cartoon for Saturday, July 29.

http://userfriendly.org/