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: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 11 2015, @03:35PM
N.B. I'll add that the Citizens United SCOTUS decision was the coup de grace.
It's just a natural defense of the First Amendment. The rule of law doesn't always swing your way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11 2015, @09:29PM
First Amendment
A supermajority of Americans disagree with that position.
If you were to poll a group of USAians, I'm pretty sure the numbers would come out with about 97 percent saying "Money is not speech; corporations are not people."
The rule of law doesn't always swing your way
True--in the short run.
Dred Scott (1854)
The black man has "no rights that the white man is bound to respect".
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
"separate but equal"
Brown v Board (1954)
"separate is inherently unequal"
Bad Supreme Court majorities come and bad Supreme Court majorities go.
...and people need to remember what happened in France in 1789 when the system had become so lopsided and unfair.
-- gewg_