Are our online "digital tattoos" more lasting/telling than our ink-on-skin tattoos?

[keepcalm]

...a TED speaker asks:

Juan Enriquez: Your online life, permanent as a tattoo | Talk Video | TED.com

I thought it was an intriguing talk only because often, the negative reactions to tattoos have to do with them being "forever," and "what if you change your mind?", etc. It made me think about the young people I've known who've passed away -- their Twitter feeds, their Facebook profiles -- their online selves are frozen in time. The girl who passed away 12 years ago, would she still like those same TV shows she talks about on Twitter, or be comfortable showing those Facebook profile pictures? In the grand scheme, it doesn't f^cking matter -- those things show who she was at that time, and I don't think there's anything shameful or regrettable or embarrassing about that.

We're all humans, and we all grow and change our minds and adopt new attitudes. Everything we leave behind -- tattoos, Facebook pages, message board posts, blogs, pictures -- is just a big, fat smearing of evidence of how we've personally tripped through life. Like the slime trail a slug leaves behind.

Yes, you can quote me on that last one. I know it's elegant as f^ck. ::sips tea, pinky out::

[OutOfIdeas]

I think this pretty well sums up why I still like my bad tattoos. I got them at a time when "fuck it" was kind of my motto, and even if they suck they remind me of that awesome carefree period of time.

[Smartiestattoo]

Commenting to find this link later, love the TED talks. Excellent way to see things from a different perspective