Noah Parrill

May 10, 2016

English 1101
Professor Probst-Martin
Farmers Unite Dating Site Debate
Farmers Unite
With 3.17 billion users the Internet has become a dominate force in our culture since its
introduction in 1990. Users of the internet now have an unlimited way to seek information and
gain knowledge about virtually any topic with the click of a button. This information is also
available very quickly. Users no longer have to rigorously search through various media types to
find their answers. But when does access to the internet effect peoples lives, invade their
personal privacy, and go too far? This question directly relates to our case of Farmer Joe Jeffreys
against Farmers Unite online dating website. Farmers Unite is an online dating website that
specializes in connecting farmers who are looking for a significant other. Farmers Unite connects
these couples by asking the user to answer questions truthfully about themselves to help them
find their best match. Joe Jeffreys is an Illinois farmer who previously worked as a substitute
teacher that created a Famers Unite account to help connect him with other single farmers.
During the set up process Joe lied on his profile about his height and gross income, then he sped
through the terms of use and accepted the terms without reading them cautiously. What he
missed in the terms of use was that he agreed a third party may have access to information shared
with Farmers Unite. Joe now wants to sue Famers United for damages to his character, because
his Famers Unite picture was found on a janitorial website without his permission, and Joe is
also being audited by the IRS for lying about his gross income on Farmers Unite, for taxation
reasons. Should Joe lose his case? I think Joe should lose his case against Farmers Unite because,
although some may falsely argue his personal privacy was violated. he knowingly lied on his
questionnaire about his income, and he also agreed to the specific terms set forth by Farmers
Unite prior to his account being activate.

To begin, Joe agreed to the specific terms set forth by Farmers Unite prior to his account
being activated. Joes failure to read these terms of use and agreeing to them carelessly without
knowing their full meaning or purpose is his error. Farmers Unite cannot be held at fault for his
carelessness. Therefore, by not reading the terms any damage to his character came at his own
expense. In the terms of use Famers Unite clearly states a third party may have access to the
information Joe shared on his profile. This includes both the IRS and an individual having access
to his picture. Joe is a victim of what many people in this age of quick online Google search
engine answer are falling victim too. People today do not read into sections of text because they
are use to quick short to read answers. Joe did not take the time to read the terms of use because
it involved long reading and he was not use to that much work. This is expressed by Adam
Gopnik, who has a masters degree from New York University and is published in the well know
magazine The New Yorker when he states in his article How Google Gets Inside Us Now
having been stuck with the library shtick, she has to go on working the stacks in the Harry Potter
movies, while the kids who have since come of age nudge their parents. Why is she doing
that? they whisper. Why doesnt she just Google it? (para.1). The importance of this is not the
context of Harry Potter, the importance is in the fact that kids and adults in todays society do not
know why somebody would read a book when they could just Google it. Joe was thinking in the
same way of why would I read these long terms of use when I could take the easy way out and
just agree to them and this is his error in judgement. Furthermore, Joe fell victim to what
Nicholas Carr a writer with a masters in English from Harvard and Pulitzer Prize finalist said in
his published article Is Google Making Us Stupid, Carr states And what the Net seems to be
doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects
to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles

(para.3). Joe like many people in this age of reading through information quickly and in little
partials as Carr describes it, could not keep his concentration long enough to thoroughly read
through the terms of use and know what he was agreeing to. This is nobodys fault but Joes.
Farmers Unite cannot be held accountable for somebody that prefers to just Google something
and cannot conceive reading a lengthy piece of text like Gopnik portrays, and Farmers Unite
cannot be held accountable for somebody that cannot concentrate and thoughtfully read through
something for the duration of the text like Carr suggests. In the end Joe did agree to the terms
and because of his error in not wanting to not take the time to read the information, and it cost
him.
Secondly, Joe knowingly lied on his questionnaire about his income. In this case the real
issue is that Joe is being pursued by the IRS for lying about his income and taxes. This is also
only Joes fault and Farmers Unite cannot be blamed for his decisions. This can be expressed by
a quote from Carrs Is Google Making Us Stupid Nietzsche replied, our writing equipment takes
part in the forming of our thoughts. Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media
scholar Friedrich A. Kittler, Nietzsches prose changed from arguments to aphorisms, from
thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style (Carr.para.3). Carr and the scholars thoughts
in this section of his article are expressing the thought that the machine people use to write their
thoughts, help to form the thoughts they create. In Joes case the computer machine was shaping
his thought to lie about his income something he may not have done if he was signing up face to
face, because he thought he could hide behind a computer screen. Joes poor decision to lie due
to the fact that he did not have to directly account for his lie was an error by Joe and in no way
Farmers Unites fault. Joe knew what he was doing and decided to lie about his income, because
he was hiding behind a computer screen and did not think this would matter.

To further the previous point about Joe lying on his questionnaire, Adam Gopnik states in
How Google Get Inside Us Thus the limitless malice of Internet commentating: its not newly
unleashed anger but what we all think in the first order, and have always in the past socially
restrained if only thanks to the look on the listeners face-the monstrous music that runs through
our minds is now played out loud (Gopnik. Para.25). Gopnik states this when talking about
leaving hurtful comments about people on the internet, and now it is so easy because you can just
hide behind a computer screen when you are doing it, so it is easier. Joe essentially did the same
thing but instead of leaving hurtful comments he is hiding behind the screen and lying about
personal information. The internet has made it so easy for people to hide behind a screen and not
worry about what they post because they feel they will never have to face it in person. In this
case it turns out Joe does have to face what he did. Farmers Unite did not hurt Joes character.
Joe created the holes in his character himself when he decided to hide behind a screen and lie.
Joes choices to lie because he was hiding behind a screen were only his fault no matter what
machine he was using or how it altered his ability to tell the truth, and the damage to his
character he is suing for was only inflected by himself.
Lastly, despite the strong points I have made some may still argue that Farmers Unite
damaged Joes character. Some may argue that the internet is too powerful, and how was a rural
farmer like Joe supposed to understand his online rights, and how far a lie and agreeing to terms
could go. These critics could point to James Gleick, a writer with a degree from Harvard in
English and Pulitzer finalist authors published article How Google Dominates Us statement
It takes a God to know a thing like that. Not anymore (para.4). Gleick is referring to the
company Google in this instance, but god is just a microcosm for the internet as a whole and it
could be argued that the internet is as powerful almost as a God, how could Joe know his rights

against this? To this I do not disagree that the internet is a very powerful thing, but I counter with
if Joe did not know the consequences and what he was up against he should not have made a
profile in the first place, and it is not Farmers Unite fault he was careless. If Joe felt like he was
not sure about the consequences he faces by making a Farmer Unite profile, and felt like the
internet was overpowering, he should have restrained himself from making a profile and kept
himself off the internet. Farmers Unite cannot be held accountable for Joes lack of research.
Another argument could be individuals like Joe are not protected enough against the internet and
it is unfair. They would agree with Daniel J. Solove, a professor of law at the George Washington
University of Law School who has published many articles on privacy rights, in his article The
End of Privacy he states We already have many legal tools to protect privacy, but they are
currently crippled by conceptions of privacy that prevent them from working effectively. A
broader development of the law should take into account problematic uses of personal
information (para.30). To this I counter that if Joe did not think his privacy rights were fair, and
he was protected correctly he shouldnt have been on the internet. Joe was the one that agreed to
the privacy rights even if he didnt read through them correctly and agreed to them. Therefore,
no matter how fair the laws may be Farmers Unite is exempt from all legal action on that front.
There is no argument to be made why Farmers Unite should be held responsible for Joes
damage to his character. Joe should have been more educated about what he was doing.
To conclude, Joe should lose his case against Farmers Unite because he knowingly lied
on his questionnaire about his income and he also agreed to the specific terms set forth by
Farmers Unite prior to his account being activated. Although some may falsely argue his
personal privacy was violated. Joe agreed to the terms set by Farmers Unite even though he did
not read them thoroughly, it was his own fault due to his carelessness and he wanted to take the

easy way of just agreeing to the terms because his mind did not want to read all the information.
Joe also knowingly lied about his income on the Famers Unite website and there is nobody to
blame for this but himself. Farmers Unite cannot be responsible for Joes mindset that he could
lie because of the medium he was using to create the account. Joes feeling he could lie because
it was only through a computer screen was his own fault. The false argument that his personal
privacy was violated by Farmers Unite was proved wrong in the fact that although the internet is
powerful Joe should have known the consequences before he decided to create an account, and if
he felt like he was not protected on the internet he should not have been on the internet. Joes
carelessness in this case can not be put on Farmers Unite, it can only be blamed on Joe.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic (2008): n. pag. Web. 5 May 2016.

Gleick, James. "How Google Dominates Us." The New York Review (2011): n. pag. Web. 5 May
2016.

Gopnik, Adam. "How The Internet Gets Inside Us." The New Yorker (2011): n. pag. Web. 5 May
2016.

Solove, Daniel J. "The End Of Privacy?" Scientific American (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 5 May 2016.