You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (Vintage)

In You are not a Gadget Jaron Lanier purposes that the emergence of web 2.0, cloud computing, and the "hive mind" of humanity are beginning to stifle creativity, individualism, and expression in the human race. He believes a paradigm shift has occurred (and is rapidly continuing to occur) in the last two decades that is reducing our fundamental human-ness. I find his ideas fascinating.The book starts out speaking about the limitations inherent in our current technology due to lock-in as many of the programming languages currently in use today were written ten, twenty, thirty years ago. A good example is MIDI. MIDI was created to be a simple mime of a synthesizer on a computer, but MIDI only specifies certain notes in a limited range (like the keys on a piano). Pick up a saxophone or start to sing and there are many more possible sounds than can be produced using MIDI; the technology is so embedded in everything we do now that it's locked-in.Lainer stands in contrast to proponents of the free/open culture movement; most free culture advocates perceive themselves as rebellious and liberal but Lainer posits that they are the conservative ones. He makes a great point in that many of our best pieces of software have come from closed systems - i.e. the iPhone or Adobe Flash. This quote sums up his view nicely: "If we choose to pry culture away from capitalism while the rest of life is still capitalistic, culture will become a slum." I think a happy medium does exist, but is currently not present in efforts such as Creative Commons licensing (though it's certainly a start)."Am I accusing all of those hundreds of millions of users of social networking sites of reducing themselves in order to be able to use the services? Well yes, I am. [...] A real friendship outght to introduce each person to unexpected weirdness in the other. Each acquaintance is an alien, a well of unexplored difference in the experience of life that cannot be imagined or accessed in any way but through genuine interaction. The idea of friendship in database-filtered social networks is certainly reduced from that." Sure all of that is true, but that all depends on how we define and value various words. I don't consider all of my 1,192 "Facebook friends" to be my close friends in real life, many are people that I've met along the way and simply want to keep in touch with occasionally. I realized shortly after reading that chapter that I was being small. I grew up straddling the analog and digital ages and I know both. Lanier is looking beyond that at future generations that will grow up on Facebook, Twitter, and other web 2.0 networks.I've found great joy in people I've met on the internet and proceeded to meet in person, many of who have become great friends. I've been meeting people from online communities for nearly a decade now and it's never been weird or creepy, aside from the middle school dance feeling that might occur for the first few minutes. To be fair, Lainer does spend about a page or two praising this result of the web, but I don't think he gives it enough credit.One point I have to strongly disagree with is Lanier's assertion that musical progress has been greatly slowed and everything is just "retro, retro, retro." He says most people in their 20s can't differentiate between 90s and 00s music. Can you tell me that there's anything that sounds like The Postal Service or The Knife from the 20th century? Those are just two examples off the top of my head but there's a plethora of original music out there right now that is distinct to our time. I'm also not sure why musical genres and trends have to be spliced into ten year increments that coincide neatly with decades, but that's just an aside. Musical genres have splintered and there's isn't currently an overarching archetype, but I would say that's simply because we have access to so much music and record companies no longer have as much power to set the standard for what is appropriate for the masses. The masses decide for themselves by finding new music on the internet.I found this book to be a fantastic thought exercise and it made me take a hard look at my technological worldview. I wish the conclusion was a more coherent and non-tangential; Lanier goes on to talk about cephlopods for several pages at the end of the book.My life is seeped in web 2.0; this review itself is sending to four different web 2.0 platforms after I hit the publish button. We as a culture and society have become so engrossed in these platforms that I think it's important to step back and evaluate exactly what it is we're doing. I hope there's a compromise that exists between totally free and open culture and closed systems; I suppose we'll find out.

If you interact with a computer and the computer doesn't know that you are not another machine, have you lost an essential part of your humanness?This unsettling book explores some of the strange conundra created by our fascination with all things `web 2.0'. From the way one programmer's convenience becomes the next generation's strait-jacket, to the loss of identity in wiki-based knowledge, and the lowering of self-esteem among Facebook addicted youth, to the `ideal' of perpetual existence as a stream of electrons in a computer's `consciousness, this book takes science fiction and roots it deep into the rich manure of common current `culture'.The concept that structure and process can speed up adoption and dissemination of new ideas by lowering volatility and improving message targeting is anathema to the proponents of wiki-style freedom. But is the freedom of information necessarily worth the sacrifice of individual expression, attribution and control? Proponents of the hive mind or noosphere would argue that case but Lanier takes an independent stance that values contribution of individuals as individuals, with their personal intelligence, experience and emotion, above the anonymous, often re-edited and variable outputs of agglomerated information mash-ups. It is a brave, but valid, stance and coherently reasoned.The doctrine of crowd-based wisdom is infiltrating strategy and policy development processes. Whilst involvement is inherently useful, it appears obvious, upon reading this treatise, that there should be clear limits to the way in which crowds are used and scope for individual attributable contributions to retain relevance.The use of pseudonyms and anonymous postings is definitely supporting the rise of `Trolls'. Trolls, in cyberspace, are people who are abusive towards other people or ideas. They have been implicated in cyber-bullying which leaves boards exposed to claims of failure to prevent harassment and/or discrimination. The move towards transparency is greatly hampered when organisations interact online with anonymous respondents.As Lanier points out, "If you win anonymously no one knows, and if you lose, you just change your pseudonym and start over, without having modified your point of view one bit. If the Troll is anonymous and the target is known then the dynamic is even worse." Any company is at risk of a cyber-storm if their operations, brand or philosophy should offend a tribe of trolls. The case of Nestle and the palm oil debate is a dramatic illustration of this principle in action.Another of Lanier's bugbears is the principle of `lock-in', where decisions made in the early stages of development establish constraints on decision-making in the later stages until they become ingrained as `facts'. Reducing the richness of individual experience to suit the templates of networking sites is a harrowing process to any innovative thinkers. Cutting the glissando of music into computer recognisable notes is anathema to many musicians. Both of these processes have enabled sharing and progress on a scale unparalleled in human history. Both are reducing the expression of future potential by fitting it into a template based on past expedience.Lanier is one of the leading thinkers of the internet age and this book has set him apart, and at odds, from his fellows. It has also provided a necessary space for consideration in our headlong rush to the brave new lands of the internet fuelled universe. Like the maps of olden-times, at the edges of our current knowledge it would be well to mark the internet with signs stating `Here be Dragons'. They may only be dragons of our own invention but it is as well proceed towards them with due caution.Highly recommended for both fans and sceptics of web 2.0 plus anyone who is still undecided.Available at amazon.com * Julie Garland McLellan is a professional non-executive director, board and governance consultant and mentor. She is the author of "Presenting to Boards", "Dilemmas, Dilemmas: practical case studies for company directors', "The Director's Dilemma", "All Above Board: Great Governance for the Government Sector" and numerous articles on corporate strategy and governance. Dilemmas, Dilemmas: Practical Case Studies for Company Directors Presenting to Boards: Practical Skills for Corporate Presentations (Volume 1)

I first heard of Jaron Lanier in the early 90s as one of the originators of virtual reality, and had formed a more recent impression of him as a digital iconoclast, based in part on references to this book (first published in 2010). He suggests that the the way in which the Web and the software we use to browse, search, communicate, shop and advertise has evolved (and has continued to evolve since the book's appearance) is, in the words of the back cover blurb, "deadening personal interaction, stifling genuine inventiveness and even changing us as people". This is contentious stuff, in a world where just about all of us have been happy to hand over our identities for the sake of convenience, self-aggrandizement and ease of access to stuff that is cheap or (apparently) free. The idea that, if you can't identify as a user of an online system, then you're being used by it is by now well-established (in part due to this book), but - once again - people still appear to be pretty happy with their side of the deal.Lanier's argument includes a lot of personal anecdote - e.g. "I know quite a few people [...] who are proud to say that they have accumulated thousands of friends on Facebook. Obviously this statement can only be true if the idea of friendship is reduced" [p53]. Elsewhere (on p71), he eulogises an online forum populated by players of the oud (a middle Eastern string instrument) like himself; he sees this as a counterexample to the way in which people on the Web have become less human (through insensitivity, lack of consideration, appreciation or identification, coupled with an exploitation of the gift to be abusive which anonymity has given them).Regarding the commercial aspects of the Web, he proposes transitioning to a system in which we earn money when bit-based artifacts that we own (like photos or music) are visited by others, and we pay money to visit the bits of others. This is proposed in part as an alternative to online piracy, but mainly to encourage denizens of the Web to become more creative, rather than passive consumers of artifacts and culture. Later on, he links this passivity to a perceived stasis in music - specifically, he challenges the reader (especially if youthful) to identify the characteristics of a piece of music from the late 2000s which distinguish it from the late 1990s. He acknowledges (in part) that this perception could arise from his own age (he was in his early fifties when he wrote the book - exactly a year younger than me, I just discovered), but thinks it worth raising as a concern that the Web and its tools are responsible for the replacement of originality with "a petty mashup of pre-web culture" [p131].Even though it's quite a short book, there's room for other ideas, including the notion that neoteny (the retention of juvenile characteristics in mature organisms) is being exacerbated for humans by online technology, which - for example - provides social media and blogs to answer the craving for attention "which young adults in their newly extended childhood" [p180] have. Elsewhere, he speculates on the evolution of semantics, the difference between the perception of images, sounds and odours and physiological bases for metaphor.This is all stimulating stuff which I enjoyed reading, although I occasionally wondered whether the use of big words (e.g. "Bachelardian neoteny", "cephalapod envy", "postsymbolic communication") was helping the argument, or merely demonstrating some degree of wackiness on the part of the author.

‘You are not a gadget - a manifesto’, by Jaron LanierHave carried this book around with me for a couple of years. Just finished it today. Great read and lots to think about. Would not claim to understand all of the points made but food for thought for anyone like myself who spends much time contributing to social networks.Lanier deals with a long list of concerns he has with recent developments. In fact one of these relates to information being taken out of context e.g. fragments being reused in various social networks. While reviewing the book - and therefore selecting some of the ideas - I suggest that if you think the subject matter is of interest you should read the full book.The author addresses the subject of ‘authorship’ - referencing a discussion between Kevin Kelly (who postulates that eventually there will be only one book) and John Updike on the subject. His opionion is that authorship is not a priority for the new ideology promoted by the singularity, the anti humanist computer scientists, promoters of ‘digital maoisim’ or the ‘noosphere’.Lanier is highly critical of web 2.0 designs which actively demand that people define themselves downwards. Nor is he a fan of Wikipedia - which he sees as (1) a system which removes individual ‘points of view’ and (2) lendds itself to ‘lazy’ search engines serving up its context as its first answer each time.Lanier also has less expectations of crowd wisdom than James Surowiecki. The author stresses the need for a combination of collective and individual intelligence. In fact he would avoid having crowds frame their own questions. He has concerns for a society that risks mob rule as a follow on from crowd wisdom, in its extreme form.Interestingly the author claims to be optimistic and to see benefits in technology. But the technology should exist to server people and to improve the human condition. He seems to be unconvinced about the benefits of much of the web 2.0 culture and associated ideology. He sees it lending itself to a winner take all - the lords of the cloud and search - while the creators of cultural experiences will work for very little (if anything at all).He spends a reasonable amount of time looking at modern music and suggesting that we have lost much of the creativity of previous generations - that in fact much so what we hear is rehash of previously created music. Later in the book he also references phenotropics (his own programming/ development environment).Lanier is encouraging everyone to value their own individualism - in this context we are all encouraged to be expressive in our website content, to be reflective and to take more time in preparing blog postings. His concern is that we are devaluing the individual and are at risk of ‘spirituality committing suicide’ as consciousness wills itself out of existence.He is a long way from accepting the Ray Kurzweil view (‘singularity’) - that the computing cloud will scoop up the contents of our brains so we can live in virtual reality’. While not necessarily signing up to all of his commentary and analysis (e.g. re music) I certainly find myself more aligned to the humanist than the ‘noosphere’ group.

An amazing book, easy to read and follow despite what might feel like heavy subject matter, I would heavily recommend this book to anyone who consumes Internet culture, uses social networking sites, blogs or tweets. Don't be scared, it's not a massive behavioural slap in the face. It does critique a culture we all now sit within but is optimistic overall and defiantly makes you think.

Bit of a difficult read.

Lanier is a computer scientist and philosopher and this is his eloquent statement on Web 2.0 and where he thinks things are heading.The thrust of his argument seems to be that with the spread of social media, Wikipedia, amateur bloggers, free content, mashups on YouTube, the demise of the music industry, the impending demise of (paper) book publishing, the impending demise of Hollywood, the impending demise of newspapers - ie the demise of paid-for content generated by experts and artists - and the rise of "the hive mind" of the internet, we (society, humankind) are headed in an unproductive direction.He has a lot of ideas about the music industry (he is a musician) and, as a lifelong fan of popular music, I had to agree with a lot of what he had to say. Hip-hop was the last true development in popular music. Everything since has just been a shadow of what went before. And, furthermore, it's difficult to see how anything new could now appear. From my point of view, as each year passes, "new" artists simply seem ever more derivative.It's not all doom and gloom. He does have a lot of suggestions that could prevent the predicted slide into ouroboros-like auto-digestion but - he's clearly a very bright chap - I did find the last quarter of the book rather heavy going.Thought-provoking, insightful and provocative.8/10