HI Billy, While true, it seems hardly news. Before that it was the hubris of mass media, and the hubris of the university. When has humanity not been self-centered, naive and nihlisitic?
— Ernie p. > On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:16 PM, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > Electronic hive mind: > The hubris of Silicon Valley > > > There are so many fallacies in 'Silicon Valley thinking' identified in this > article > that it would take a huge investment of time to deal with everything that > is wrong. But, briefly, it comes down to human values and the systems of > thought > that make our values what they are: Philosophy, religion, the arts, the inner > workings of the professions, our politics, the schools we have attended, > and so forth. Yet how seriously does the Valley take any of this? > Answer: Not much, peripherally, incidentally. > > Because, you see, the imperatives of high tech set new rules that, we are > assured, > render obsolete all of human culture. > > Actually no such thing is happening and what we are really getting is > Hollywood > sci fi as if Jedi-ism really represents wisdom, and as if The Terminator > really > symbolizes something inevitable about the future. Which is to say that the > values > of screen writers who specialize in science fiction have replaced sources > of wisdom most of us still regard as superior in that department, namely, > professors whom we respect, clergymen we respect, book authors > whom we respect, and, rara avis or not, those political leaders > who have actual integrity. > > What we are getting by way of culture from Silicon Valley, in other words, > is anything but actual wisdom. It is, s'il vous plait, plastic wisdom, > the wisdom of fads, and the non-wisdom that results from valorizing > flawed algorithms. > > Take one example of "deep thinking" discussed in the essay, Mark Zuckerberg's > plan to erase the possibility of multiple identities we each all have as part > of > who we are as complex human beings who live in a complicated world. > Zuckerberg regards such multiple identities as sinful, needless, and > unhelpful. Which, as Franklin Foer noted, is "both an expression of idealism > and an elaborate justification for Facebook’s business model." > > It is also an admission that Zuckerberg has little interest in the study > of psychology, social psychology, anthropology, etc, and of course > none at all in that source of many of our deepest feelings of identity, > our religious faith. > > I do "get it" that there are imperatives in the computer / software business > that deserve to be taken seriously, and, as well, deserve to be treasured. > Indeed, the idea that computers are excellent at helping us do what we > most like to do, and at what we sometimes need to do as responsible > members of society, is always good to keep in mind. Where this all > goes astray is in the hubris department. Silicon Valley is not some sort > of ultra-modern electronic Vatican to which we all should turn to tell us > how to think and what to do. > > > We can do a helluva lot better than that. > > Billy R. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Washington Post > September 8, 2017 > > How Silicon Valley is erasing your individuality > > > By: Franklin Foer > > > > Until recently, it was easy to define our most widely known corporations. Any > third-grader could describe their essence. Exxon sells gas; McDonald’s makes > hamburgers; Walmart is a place to buy stuff. This is no longer so. Today’s > ascendant monopolies aspire to encompass all of existence. Google derives > from googol, a number (1 followed by 100 zeros) that mathematicians use as > shorthand for unimaginably large quantities. Larry Page and Sergey Brin > founded Google with the mission of organizing all knowledge, but that proved > too narrow. They now aim to build driverless cars, manufacture phones and > conquer death. Amazon, which once called itself “the everything store,” now > produces television shows, owns Whole Foods and powers the cloud. The > architect of this firm, Jeff Bezos, even owns this newspaper. > > Along with Facebook, Microsoft and Apple, these companies are in a race to > become our “personal assistant.” They want to wake us in the morning, have > their artificial intelligence software guide us through our days and never > quite leave our sides. They aspire to become the repository for precious and > private items, our calendars and contacts, our photos and documents. They > intend for us to turn unthinkingly to them for information and entertainment > while they catalogue our intentions and aversions. Google Glass and the Apple > Watch prefigure the day when these companies implant their artificial > intelligence in our bodies. Brin has mused, “Perhaps in the future, we can > attach a little version of Google that you just plug into your brain.” > > More than any previous coterie of corporations, the tech monopolies aspire to > mold humanity into their desired image of it. They think they have the > opportunity to complete the long merger between man and machine — to redirect > the trajectory of human evolution. How do I know this? In annual addresses > and town hall meetings, the founding fathers of these companies often make > big, bold pronouncements about human nature — a view that they intend for the > rest of us to adhere to. Page thinks the human body amounts to a basic piece > of code: “Your program algorithms aren’t that complicated,” he says. And if > humans function like computers, why not hasten the day we become fully cyborg? > > > > > To take another grand theory, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has exclaimed > his desire to liberate humanity from phoniness, to end the dishonesty of > secrets. “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or > co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end > pretty quickly,” he has said. “Having two identities for yourself is an > example of a lack of integrity.” Of course, that’s both an expression of > idealism and an elaborate justification for Facebook’s business model. > > [Tech’s sexism doesn’t stay in Silicon Valley. It’s in the products you use.] > > There’s an oft-used shorthand for the technologist’s view of the world. It is > assumed that libertarianism dominates Silicon Valley, and that isn’t wholly > wrong. High-profiledevotees of Ayn Rand can be found there. But if you listen > hard to the titans of tech, it’s clear that their worldview is something much > closer to the opposite of a libertarian’s veneration of the heroic, solitary > individual. The big tech companies think we’re fundamentally social beings, > born to collective existence. They invest their faith in the network, the > wisdom of crowds, collaboration. They harbor a deep desire for the atomistic > world to be made whole. (“Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and > building a global community,” Zuckerberg wrote in one of his many > manifestos.) By stitching the world together, they can cure its ills. > > > Rhetorically, the tech companies gesture toward individuality — to the > empowerment of the “user” — but their worldview rolls over it. Even the > ubiquitous invocation of users is telling: a passive, bureaucratic > description of us. The big tech companies (the Europeans have lumped them > together as GAFA: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) are shredding the > principles that protect individuality. Their devices and sites have collapsed > privacy; they disrespect the value of authorship, with their hostility toward > intellectual property. In the realm of economics, they justify monopoly by > suggesting that competition merely distracts from the important problems like > erasing language barriers and building artificial brains. Companies should > “transcend the daily brute struggle for survival,” as Facebook investor Peter > Thiel has put it. > > When it comes to the most central tenet of individualism — free will — the > tech companies have a different way. They hope to automate the choices, both > large and small, we make as we float through the day. It’s their algorithms > that suggest the news we read, the goods we buy, the paths we travel, the > friends we invite into our circles. > > It’s hard not to marvel at these companies and their inventions, which often > make life infinitely easier. But we’ve spent too long marveling. The time has > arrived to consider the consequences of these monopolies, to reassert our > role in determining the human path. Once we cross certain thresholds — once > we remake institutions such as media and publishing, once we abandon privacy > — there’s no turning back, no restoring our lost individuality. > > > Over the generations, we’ve been through revolutions like this before. Many > years ago, we delighted in the wonders of TV dinners and the other newfangled > foods that suddenly filled our kitchens: slices of cheese encased in plastic, > oozing pizzas that emerged from a crust of ice, bags of crunchy tater tots. > In the history of man, these seemed like breakthrough innovations. > Time-consuming tasks — shopping for ingredients, tediously preparing a recipe > and tackling a trail of pots and pans — were suddenly and miraculously > consigned to history. > > The revolution in cuisine wasn’t just enthralling. It was transformational. > New products embedded themselves deeply in everyday life, so much so that it > took decades for us to understand the price we paid for their convenience, > efficiency and abundance. Processed foods were feats of engineering, all > right — but they were engineered to make us fat. Their delectable taste > required massive quantities of sodium and sizable stockpiles of sugar, which > happened to reset our palates and made it harder to sate hunger. It took vast > quantities of meat and corn to fabricate these dishes, and a spike in > demandremade American agriculture at a terrible environmental cost. A whole > new system of industrial farming emerged, with penny-conscious conglomerates > cramming chickens into feces-covered pens and stuffing them full of > antibiotics. By the time we came to understand the consequences of our > revised patterns of consumption, the damage had been done to our waistlines, > longevity, souls and planet. > > > [Most of my medical colleagues are women. The Google guy gets them wrong.] > > Something like the midcentury food revolution is now reordering the > production and consumption of knowledge. Our intellectual habits are being > scrambled by the dominant firms. Giant tech companies have become the most > powerful gatekeepers the world has ever known. Google helps us sort the > Internet, by providing a sense of hierarchy to information; Facebook uses its > algorithms and its intricate understanding of our social circles to filter > the news we encounter; Amazon bestrides book publishing with its overwhelming > hold on that market. > > > Such dominance endows these companies with the ability to remake the markets > they control. As with the food giants, the big tech companies have given rise > to a new science that aims to construct products that pander to their > consumers. Unlike the market research and television ratings of the past, the > tech companies have a bottomless collection of data, acquired as they track > our travels across the Web, storing every shard about our habits in the hope > that they may prove useful. They have compiled an intimate portrait of the > psyche of each user — a portrait that they hope to exploit to seduce us into > a compulsive spree of binge clicking and watching. And it works: On average, > each Facebook user spends one-sixteenth of their day on the site. > > In the realm of knowledge, monopoly and conformism are inseparable perils. > The danger is that these firms will inadvertently use their dominance to > squash diversity of opinion and taste. Concentration is followed by > homogenization. As news media outlets have come to depend heavily on Facebook > and Google for traffic — and therefore revenue — they have rushed to produce > articles that will flourish on those platforms. This leads to a duplication > of the news like never before, with scores of sites across the Internet > piling onto the same daily outrage. It’s why a picture of a mysteriously > colored dressgenerated endless articles, why seemingly every site recaps > “Game of Thrones.” Each contribution to the genre adds little, except clicks. > Old media had a pack mentality, too, but the Internet promised something much > different. And the prevalence of so much data makes the temptation to pander > even greater. > > This is true of politics. Our era is defined by polarization, warring > ideological gangs that yield no ground. Division, however, isn’t the root > cause of our unworkable system. There are many causes, but a primary problem > is conformism. Facebook has nurtured two hive minds, each residing in an > informational ecosystem that yields head-nodding agreement and penalizes > dissenting views. This is the phenomenon that the entrepreneur and author Eli > Pariser famously termed the “Filter Bubble” — how Facebook mines our data to > keep giving us the news and information we crave, creating a feedback loop > thatpushes us deeper and deeper into our own amen corners. > > As the 2016 presidential election so graphically illustrated, a hive mind is > an intellectually incapacitated one, with diminishing ability to tell fact > from fiction, with an unshakable bias toward party line. The Russians > understood this, which is why they invested so successfully in spreading > dubious agitprop via Facebook. And it’s why a raft of companies sprouted — > Occupy Democrats, the Angry Patriot, Being Liberal — to get rich off the > Filter Bubble and to exploit our susceptibility to the lowest-quality news, > if you can call it that. > > [Uber’s algorithms could spot crimes in progress. But do we want them to?] > > Facebook represents a dangerous deviation in media history. Once upon a time, > elites proudly viewed themselves as gatekeepers. They could be sycophantic to > power and snobbish, but they also felt duty-bound to elevate the standards of > society and readers. Executives of Silicon Valley regard gatekeeping as the > stodgy enemy of innovation — they see themselves as more neutral, scientific > and responsive to the market than the elites they replaced — a perspective > that obscures their own power and responsibilities. So instead of shaping > public opinion, they exploit the public’s worst tendencies, its tribalism and > paranoia. > > *** > > During this century, we largely have treated Silicon Valley as a force beyond > our control. A broad consensus held that lead-footed government could never > keep pace with the dynamism of technology. By the time government acted > against a tech monopoly, a kid in a garage would have already concocted some > innovation to upend the market. Or, as Google’s Eric Schmidt, put it, > “Competition is one click away.” A nostrum that suggested that the very > structure of the Internet defied our historic concern for monopoly. > > As individuals, we have similarly accepted the omnipresence of the big tech > companies as a fait accompli. We’ve enjoyed their free products and next-day > delivery with only a nagging sense that we may be surrendering something > important. Such blitheness can no longer be sustained. Privacy won’t survive > the present trajectory of technology — and with the sense of being > perpetually watched, humans will behave more cautiously, less subversively. > Our ideas about the competitive marketplace are at risk. With a decreasing > prospect of toppling the giants, entrepreneurs won’t bother to risk starting > new firms, a primary source of jobs and innovation. And the proliferation of > falsehoods and conspiracies through social media, the dissipation of our > common basis for fact, is creating conditions ripe for authoritarianism. Over > time, the long merger of man and machine has worked out pretty well for man. > But we’re drifting into a new era, when that merger threatens the individual. > We’re drifting toward monopoly, conformism, their machines. Perhaps it’s time > we steer our cou0.0.01.986437472JJfLHk4GnrHaQPR:0066fc21 E:228977 > > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
