That is the new book by Jaron Lanier, a humanist critic of how the internet is shaping our lives and cultures and providing a new totalizing ideology. Of all the books with messages in this direction, it is the one I would describe as insightful. Here is one bit:
It breaks my heart when I talk to energized young people who idolize the icons of the new digital ideology, like Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and free/open/Creative Commons mashups. I am always struck by the endless stress they put themselves through. They must manage their online reputations constantly, avoiding the ever-roaming evil eye of the hive-mind, which can turn on an individual at any moment. A "Facebook generation" young person who suddenly becomes humiliated online has no way out, for there is only one hive.
And this:
People live longer as technology improves, so cultural change actually slows, because it is tied more to the outgoing generational clock than the incoming one…So Moore's law makes "generational" cultural change slow down.
It's still a book I mostly disagree with. You can buy the book here; too bad it isn't on Kindle yet. Reviews are here.
Both of these comments strike me as false. The first seems to imply that the hive-mind has a long gaze or lasting memory. If you do something stupid and it’s broadcast on facebook, your mistake is news of the moment for 15 seconds before it, and you, are largely forgotten. As an early adapter of facebook and regular user, I have yet to see someone do anything that would verify Lanier’s claim that there is only one “hive” and that a single failure is cataclysmic.
The second point, that change is generational, makes sense for politics, but not for culture. It seems to me that culture is trying to progress more rapidly, but that it’s hindered by the old guard remaining in the political system, which is about as geriatric as one can get. Does Lanier’s argument take into account the age-bubble of the baby boomers disproportionately skewing the age ratio?
Tyler said, “You can buy the book here; too bad it isn’t on Kindle yet.”
Ha!
The WSJ published a manifesto by Mr. Lanier, essentially summarizing his book:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.html
The WSJ book review disagreed with the author:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652341134015738.html
I disgree too. I was there for the good old digital days, and I don’t miss them a bit. Web 2.0 is far more inclusive than anything that has come before. The unwashed masses are welcome, I say.
I guess having gone to high school in a tiny southern town may have sensitized me to this sort of thing (and I refuse to create a facebook account, probably because of my own issues), but having to manage one’s reputation via a website seems very preferable to having to do so via fist fight, church and family proxies.
Lanier is rather a bit of a hack, in my view. He’s mostly failed to turn talking about technology into a career, and alternates between repeating banalities and mistaking personal bitterness for insight.
This statement is nonsense. Countless hives permeate the net. This forum is only one of millions. CafeHayek.com is another. I frequent a few others. Facebook itself is not one hive but many.
If I “humiliate” myself in one hive, I can easily move to another, or I can reinvent myself with a different “face” in the same hive, or I can suck it up and rebuild my shattered reputation with the same face. The latter option is much more like real life, where my reputation is not so easily escaped. In the online world, the former options are far more available and more frequently chosen. A greater problem for the “Facebook generation” could be that real life still matters a lot more.
Time tested solution: move away. Far away.
Exactly what I did. I’m commenting from history, not current experience. I consider the absurd rent I pay to be worth every penny to have a home in NYC.
and lanier should stick to playing his pan flutes for his patchouli scented hive.
Hippy-punching, as much as it may be fun, I don’t think explains Lanier. He’s hardly a stoner dead-head, dreadlocks aside. The man isn’t dumb, but I do suspect he’s lazy, and expected that WiReD ca. 1993 and glasses-and-goggles VR was the thing to bet on, decided that talking about it was better than trying to make it happen, and was wrong on both bets. That all would be forgivable, but he doubles down by yelling at clouds.
He’s not Haight St.; he’s not quite capable of affording Orange County..
Comments on this entry are closed.