You Are Not A Gadget

Lanier's book addresses how we should approach the design and adoption of new technologies in a way that focuses on concrete improvements to human well-being. Lanier raises important points about how technological determinism (information wants to be free, privacy is over, old media are dead, the singularity is near, etc.) is defeatist, and encourages readers to understand the choices that are available at every stage of technological development and adoption and to evaluate the impact of those choices on society at large. I don't agree with everything Lanier says, but hearing out his arguments has really helped to broaden my perspective on these very important issues.

It's already amazing. I'm giving it 5 stars just for the ideas it's provoked in the first 20 pages I've read.

requires a reply; i've got considerable notes on this book; i like someone who offers "triangulation" as lanier does; my daughter recommended this to me as sort of a rebuttal to nicholas carr's "big switch". for some time, i've been among the digerati, saying "it's over, we won." thanks to lanier, i can indefinetly postpone that kindle purchase. there are things worth retaining. while he's an analog person -- heck, the whole virtual reality thing is based on voltage, and not bits -- and i'm still digital, i'm quite comfy with his critque of my neighborhood. returnreturnliterarily, his last few chapters are of the and-let-me-get-this-off-my-chest variety. so, they're not up to the sharp invictive of his earlier ones. compared to carr, he gives unix it's larger place in the pantheon, and it's not without a proportionate share of the problems, according to laneir.returnreturnlanier woke me up to how software tends to "lock down" certain decisions. in his case, the midi music format is one of those: "how do keypresses model rich tonality" is his challenge as a music maker. well enough. any bit of software makes choices for us in ways we don't always see. returnreturneven with taleb's black swan, challenging "the bell curve", i still insist any individual's rating must follow the binomial relationship. giving lanier's "gadget, U R ~" a 4.0 doesn't disturb the balance of my ratings.