SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Veteran author and longtime Silicon Valley resident Andrew Keen has stepped up his criticisms of the Internet. Describing the net as a platform that has devolved from its initial ideals and promise into a vehicle of monopolistic, manipulative and exploitative practices, a Guardian article summarizes views now gaining traction. By using Amazon, Google, Facebook, Airbnb, Uber or any other online giant, are we striking a Faustian pact, behind which lays a mass of suffering, surveillance and ruthless harvesting?
Keen supports his arguments by mentioning that even online businesses that cite individual collaboration, those of the 'sharing' economy, are mere cynical fronts for firms already valued in the billions. As money has been sucked out of retail, transportation, photography, research and other industries into the coffers of new Internet giants, the net result has been losses of jobs and the compromise of working conditions. As for the Internet's much-touted 'individual empowerment', Keen counters with the rise of mob mentality - “Rather than creating more democracy, it’s empowering the rule of the mob. Rather than encouraging tolerance, it’s unleashed such a distasteful war on women that many no longer feel welcome on the network". Keen's book - The Internet is not the Answer - is, a touch ironically, available on Amazon.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday February 10 2015, @08:51PM
The Internet has NEVER lived up to those supposed "initial ideals". It is is what it is.
By using Amazon, Google, Facebook, Airbnb, Uber or any other online giant, are we striking a Faustian pact, behind which lays a mass of suffering, surveillance and ruthless harvesting?
Pretty much yes. But we don't HAVE to 'use' those services. We are free to create and use others. Hell, SoylentNews itself is an example of that.
Now google and facebook in particular do seem to have their hooks into almost everything and avoiding them is harder than it should be, and that does strike me as unfortunate. I'm not sure what the solution is; regulation seems the only possible solution. America at least lacks the stomach for that, but I think Europe and other countries are slowly moving. (And will inevitably make missteps and overreaches along the way...)
Keen supports his arguments by mentioning that even online businesses that cite individual collaboration, those of the 'sharing' economy, are mere cynical fronts for firms already valued in the billions.
I agree with this - the sharing economy is often (but not always) a complete joke. But the only 'con' is in the name: 'sharing economy'; which conjures some sort of benevolence and reciprocity. "Crowdsourcing" is more accurate, call it that, as in to source resources from crowds. If you want to really drive it home call it "uncompensated crowd sourcing". Its not inherently exploitative; although it certainly can be, but so can anything. I think Walmart exploits people who are right on its own payroll. That doesn't represent total failure of the "employee-employer model" though.
As for the Internet's much-touted 'individual empowerment', Keen counters with the rise of mob mentality - Rather than encouraging tolerance, it’s unleashed such a distasteful war on women that many no longer feel welcome on the network"
Anyone whose been on the internet from its beginning knows that this is not new. It was there from the start. And its not just women that were targeted. Gays. Minorities. People who like emacs more than vi regardless of their creed or the color of their skin. Anyone can be targeted. As the internet has moved mainstream its just become something that affects the mainstream instead of being limited to a smaller subculture.
But Keen is wrong about one thing. It HAS created more democracy. That is the problem. Raw democracy IS mob rule. We are just re-learning perhaps that raw democracy isn't all its cracked up to be. Because lots of people are ignorant, corrupt, or will lie, or are assholes. And when you give them all a voice... their vocal diarrhea will flood the place and any imaginable minority will be trampled on.
THAT is the promise of true democracy. The Internet is just an object lesson of the truth of that.
(Score: 3) by VLM on Tuesday February 10 2015, @09:25PM
created more democracy
I thought it strange that the dude used language for political decision making, instead of something that fits the topic, like publishing language or cultural language.
The dude is just full of weirdness like that.
Another example is talking about the crony capitalist system of winner takes all, but describing it as a "digital economy" as if magically going back to vinyl LPs would make the record companies act civilized.
OR "Meanwhile, the internet’s inherent “1% model” is functioning perfectly" No that model has been around in music and pro sports since my grandpa was a little kid. I assure you "the internet" didn't invent it.
He may be suffering from a blurred vision, a variant of the religious problem of evil, if god exists and is so great why does evil exist, etc. Well, if the internet is everywhere and evil is somewheres then obviously correlation being causation, the internet must cause evil. After all, everywhere a puppy gets run over in the street, there's probably wireless internet access, so the internet obviously kills puppies.
Or maybe its just 1984 / brave new world style agitprop doublespeak.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10 2015, @10:17PM
Another example is talking about the crony capitalist system of winner takes all, but describing it as a "digital economy" as if magically going back to vinyl LPs would make the record companies act civilized.
OR "Meanwhile, the internet’s inherent “1% model” is functioning perfectly" No that model has been around in music and pro sports since my grandpa was a little kid. I assure you "the internet" didn't invent it.
Seems like that is the point of calling it a con. The utopian internet was about decentralization, but it isn't living up to that, instead it is enabling more concentration of wealth and power.
I remember back in the 90s, disintermediation was the big buzzword, but now all the big money is in the form of intermediation. Amazon Marketplace, Uber, Facebook/Instagram, SnapChat, Ebay, etc. They are all services that get between individuals and extract money from being middlemen in ways that ought to be little more than automation that could be handled with a distributed/p2p system. I still hold hope that faster symmetric internet connections will bring that about, but given the hundreds of billions of dollars concentrated in the current regime, it is going to be a fight 100x worse than the MAFIAA's war on the internet.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11 2015, @04:04AM
When literally anything and everything can be bought, of course it will all be bought by those who are able to. The solution is for money to no longer be the most powerful force known to man.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 11 2015, @02:56PM
The solution is for money to no longer be the most powerful force known to man.
There will always be trading of power and the ability to make things happen. By making the medium of exchange something other than money, just means you won't be a part of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12 2015, @07:53AM
The fact that it is money means 99.9% of people can't be part of it already.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 12 2015, @03:15PM
The fact that it is money means 99.9% of people can't be part of it already.
I disagree, of course. You can obtain money. And 99.9% of people is a lot of people, should they decide to pool their money for something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 11 2015, @04:01AM
The Internet has NEVER lived up to those supposed "initial ideals". It is is what it is.
Considering it was initially developed as a network that could withstand a nuclear holocaust, I'm OK with that.