http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/opinion/nocera-will-digital-networks-ruin-us.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
> The most important book I read in 2013 was Jaron Lanier’s “Who Owns the > Future?” .... > On the contrary: “What I came away with from having access to these varied > worlds was a realization that they were all remarkably similar,” he writes. > “The big players often gained benefits from digital networks to an amazing > degree, but they were also constrained, even imprisoned, by the same > dynamics.” > > Over time, the same network efficiencies that had given them their great > advantages would become the instrument of their failures. In the financial > services industry, it led to the financial crisis. In the case of Wal-Mart, > its adoption of technology to manage its supply chain at first reaped great > benefits, but over time it cost competitors and suppliers hundreds of > thousands of jobs, thus “gradually impoverishing its own customer base,” as > Lanier put it to me. .... > There are two additional components to Lanier’s thesis. The first is that the > digital economy has done as much as any single thing to hollow out the middle > class. (When I asked him about the effect of globalization, he said that > globalization was “just one form of network efficiency.” See what I mean > about a universal theory?) His great example here is Kodak and Instagram. At > its height, writes Lanier “Kodak employed more than 140,000 people.” Yes, > Kodak made plenty of mistakes, but look at what is replacing it: “When > Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed > only 13 people.” > > Which leads nicely to Lanier’s final big point: that the value of these new > companies comes from us. “Instagram isn’t worth a billion dollars just > because those 13 employees are extraordinary,” he writes. “Instead, its value > comes from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being > paid for it.” He adds, “Networks need a great number of people to participate > in them to generate significant value. But when they have them, only a small > number of people get paid. This has the net effect of centralizing wealth and > limiting overall economic growth.” Thus, in Lanier’s view, is income > inequality also partly a consequence of the digital economy. > > It is Lanier’s radical idea that people should get paid whenever their > information is used. He envisions a different kind of digital economy, in > which creators of content — whether a blog post or a Facebook photograph — > would receive micropayments whenever that content was used. A digital economy > that appears to give things away for free — in return for being able to > invade the privacy of its customers for commercial gain — isn’t free at all, > he argues. .... > Still his ideas about reformulating the economy — creating what he calls a > “humanistic economy” — offer much food for thought. Lanier wants to create a > dynamic where digital networks expand the pie rather than shrink it, and > rebuild the middle class instead of destroying it. -- Kim Holburn IT Network & Security Consultant T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753 mailto:[email protected] aim://kimholburn skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
