The Inner Troll

A summary of:
Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Gadget: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Manifesto. Allen Lane: London.
Chapter 3: The Noosphere is Just Another Name for Everyone's Inner Troll

The "noosphere" is a term that represents the "global encephalon formed yesteryear the amount of all the human brains connected through the internet" (45). The work is that piece nosotros are designing for this noosphere, it are seemingly allergic to it. It turns us into trolls, i.e. it tends to convey out the worst inwards us: "...the user interface designs that arise from the ideology of the computing cloud brand people - all of us - less kind" (61). This is evidenced yesteryear instances of cyber bullying as well as network wars. Does this non heighten ruddy flags? If something else inwards our lives was so poisonous, nosotros would locomote told to disengage from it entirely. But when it's technology, nosotros are supposed to choose it, as well as amongst it, our new, horrible selves.

One argue for this is because the noosphere is designed for anonymous individuals. "Individual spider web pages equally they commencement appeared inwards the early on 1990s had the flavour of personhood. MySpace preserved to a greater extent than or less of that flavor, though a procedure of regularized formatting had begun. Facebook went further, organizing people into multiple-choice identities, piece Wikipedia seeks to erase signal of see entirely" (48). In short, nosotros are reducing ourselves inwards companionship to locomote able to piece of work diverse network services (53).

Consider this: "If a church building or regime were doing these things, it would experience authoritarian, but when technologists are the culprits, nosotros seem hip, fresh, as well as inventive. People volition choose ideas presented inwards technological course of instruction that would locomote abhorrent inwards whatsoever other form" (48).

More specifically, it is "transient anonymity, coupled amongst a lack of consequences" that is so toxic (63). For example, at that topographic point is to a greater extent than responsible deportment inwards Second Life because of the endeavor required to exercise one's avatar. In other online environments, users tin shed their identities as well as adopt novel ones to avoid consequences of misfortunate behavior.

Another argue is that the noosphere idolizes the "hive mind," granting it elevated condition higher upwards the private (48). I would advise that essentially nosotros direct maintain adopted this logical fallacy: argumentum advertizement populum, whereby the truth of something is determined according to how pop it is. Such is the logic behind Digg or Wikipedia. Yet at the same time, nosotros are non organizing these crowds responsibly, which is creating to mob deportment (59).

One manifestation of this the enshrining of evolutionary thinking inside technological development. In contrary, Lanier writes, "Enlightened designers larn out opened upwards the possibility of either metaphysical specialness inwards humans or inwards the potential for unforeseen creative processes that aren't explained yesteryear ideas similar evolution that nosotros already believe nosotros tin capture inwards software systems. That variety of modesty is the signature character of beingness human-centered" (52-3).

And withal to a greater extent than or less other argue the noosphere is be-trolling us is because "the thought of friendship is beingness reduced" (53). We relate to i to a greater extent than or less other the agency nosotros are used to bureacracy treating us (69). "What computerized analysis of all the country's schoolhouse tests has done to teaching is precisely what Facebook has done to friendships. In both cases, life is turned into a database. Both degradations are based on the same philosophical mistake, which is the belief that computers tin before long stand upwards for human thought or human relationships. These are things computers cannot currently do" (69). (I would ask, though, if Lanier would intend it would locomote okay if computers had progressed to the signal of beingness able to stand upwards for human thought or relationships. Is this something nosotros should piece of work towards? - improving technologies along these lines? I would advise that this is wrongheaded. I intend the telephone substitution is to larn it direct inwards our heads i time as well as for all that humans as well as applied scientific discipline are non the same thing. We are non machines. The minute this distinction becomes blurred - e.g. yesteryear computers acquiring hitherto uniquely human skills - nosotros threaten our humanity.)

There is a danger inwards voicing one's longing for a provide to what was expert nearly before technology, equally it causes i to locomote labeled a Luddite as well as and so dismissed equally beingness overly romantic or simply afraid of change. But at that topographic point are things that actually should rest sacrosanct. For example, authorship is useful. "Updike used the metaphor of the edges of the physical newspaper inwards a physical majority to communicate the importance of enshrining the edges betwixt private authors. It was no use. Doctrinaire spider web 2.0 enthusiasts only perceived that Updike was beingness sentimental nearly an ancient technology" (46).

The telephone substitution affair to recall is "The network doesn't blueprint itself. We blueprint it" (55). We tin blueprint it better! We should await to those moments inwards history when blueprint could direct maintain gone to a greater extent than or less other way, the technological forks inwards the road, as well as consider what mightiness direct maintain happened had nosotros gone left instead of correct (68).

And nosotros direct maintain to consider the consequences of non doing anything. "How tin nosotros e'er know what nosotros mightiness locomote losing" (70)? Will nosotros cease upwards designing our side yesteryear side generations equally a bunch of pack animals amongst no feel of identity or private responsibleness (64)? At that point, volition it locomote likewise late? After all, who volition locomote left to challenge the dominant design?