#849 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday February 2)
Good morning,
“When eating fruit, remember the one who planted the tree.”
--Vietnamese proverb
MANIFESTO FOR TECHNOLOGY
There is some sense among the robber barons of Silicon Valley that they are some super species that deserve great wealth, recognition, and power by virtue of the technological advancements they have provided. They compare themselves to the great inventors and innovators of the past, like Edison, Curie, Crick, Tesla, and Ford. In return for their socially-minded innovations (yes, that’s tongue in cheek), they maintain that regulation and legal constraints are uncalled for and/or that whatever is proposed stands in the way of “free speech” or that all they are doing is providing access that people can use or avoid on their own. Never mind, of course, that hearings this week exposed again that little is being done to protect children and the algorithms that drive this are made in order to thwart whatever self-control people might otherwise try to exercise.
These moguls are quick to accept government subsidies but slow to pay taxes. They might recognize the responsibility to a civil society to moderate the use of their platforms, but adopt a view of information that has been twisted to justify stances that coincidentally also ensure maximum viewers, increase the amount of time spent on line, and generate sales of things people probably don’t need. Many of them twist the words of Adam Smith and other economists to justify the absence of societal interference with their products. Many believe that a free market means unfettered capitalism, believing that a “free market” will sort things out by itself. Never mind that all free markets have some amount of regulation in order to ensure they remain free, don’t discourage competition, require disclosure of ingredients and risks, and ensure consumer protection.
Many of these moguls view themselves as “disruptors,” a positive thing in their world. “Rules be damned. We are advancing technology here!” In my world, “disruptor” also can mean scofflaw. Some disruptors, like Air BnB and Uber, believed that ignoring laws intended to protect consumers, generate taxes, and encourage competition, did not apply to them, creating havoc, giving them unfair advantage in existing regulated (and taxed) industries, and allowing them to circumvent protections for labor.
One of the more extreme proponents of capitalism without regulation is Mark Andreesen, creator of Netscape and a significant investor in, and advisor to, a number of startups. He sees technology as “the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential.” He does not acknowledge the problems caused by technological advance or the loneliness and spread of hate, discord, and disinformation unleashed by technology. In his world, technology is good, requiring no regulation—and the market will solve all problems.
Andreeson has published a manifesto for technology that, in my view, summarizes the misguided worship of technology and confirms the hubris and “above state control” position of these new robber barons. Here is an excerpt:
“We believe that there is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.
We had a problem of starvation, so we invented the Green Revolution.
We had a problem of darkness, so we invented electric lighting.
We had a problem of cold, so we invented indoor heating.
We had a problem of heat, so we invented air conditioning.
We had a problem of isolation, so we invented the Internet.
We had a problem of pandemics, so we invented vaccines.
We have a problem of poverty, so we invent technology to create abundance.
Give us a real world problem, and we can invent technology that will solve it.”
The problems with this “manifesto” should seem obvious. First, he takes the inventions and innovations of others and incorporates them in the first person plural—“we did this,” as if there is some sort of class of innovators, bound by wisdom and history, that works outside of the system to bestow creature comforts to the masses. Apparently, the long line of innovators are interrelated and build upon each other. Then he conflates all technological advances with each other. I hardly think Facebook should be spoken of in the same breath as vaccines, electricity, and indoor heating. Most of the examples he provides are innovations arising for necessity to save lives (and not to entertain or sell goods). Finally, his claim that technology creates abundance is mistaken in that, yes, certain technologies may create abundance and reduce want—just not Mr. Andreesen’s technology.
Finally, Mr. Andreesen’s claims that the internet reduces isolation. Let’s remember that the other technologies he cites were intended to solve a problem. The Internet was not created to solve the problem of isolation. It ostensibly was created to spread information and connect like minds to each other. As it has evolved, its primary purposes now are to make money and to manipulate minds and habits by providing people (including bad actors) easier access to each other. Plus, I would argue the Internet actually has increased isolation. Think of all the hours spent on the Internet, during which time people are bombarded with fear-mongering, unattainable standards of wealth, bullying, and a sense of underachievement. All that time would better be spent interacting with other people in the real world.
Many technologies were created to solve problems and derivatively to make money. Much of the Internet—the social media platforms, the commerce applications, etc. were created to make money through manipulation. The “cure” for isolation can hardly be claimed to be a purpose from the Internet’s creation and, even if it were, it can hardly be viewed as having been successful.
A New York Times columnist on the Matter of Opinion podcast calls Andreeson’s manifesto, “Complete manifest bullshittery.” I agree.
Andreeson and his compatriots would want us to believe that unfettered development of technology can be managed by those who create the technology. But they are part of the problem. They might be great innovators and maybe even great engineers, but they are self-interested, often rarely completed their college education, and are inexperienced in addressing the myriad issues that they create. I doubt any of them took a class in legal, business, or philosophical ethics. We need seasoned legislators, social scientists, lawyers, and ethicists to create the systems to control what’s going on on the Internet. We will get nowhere as long as Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Andreesen and their ilk claim they are doing their part, and that they can do no more (while purportedly welcoming regulation), all while paying legions of lobbyists to thwart reasonable regulation.
The recent disclosures of Meta’s Instagram willingly allowing under 13-year-olds to use their platform, and perhaps even encouraging such use, is just another example of the need for regulation of social media platforms that grant too much access to hate-mongers, do little to check what’s posted, encourage over-usage of the platform, prey upon children, and agitate and energize people to keep them online.
PH.D VERSUS INTERNET WIZARD
Then there is this spin, related to the issues presented by the Internet’s “open forum” for ideas, whether based upon research and expertise or just unfounded opinion:
“Scientist:
Went to college for four years
Pursued a doctorate for another six or seven years
Joined lab, started working
Spent years studying a problem
Developed hypothesis, gathered evidence
Tested hypothesis, formed a conclusion
Reported findings, cleared peer review
Findings published, reported in press
Guy on internet:
Bullshit; it’s not true. I know better.”
These geniuses on the internet, who think they know better, provide fodder for the gullible.
Have a great day,
Glenn