HN Books @HNBooksMonth

> And we should all pretend that the internet resolves conflicts at any level?

A lot of people believe so and unfortunately some policy-makers as well. I thought the book https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp... made a good argument against cyber-utopianism.

⬐ nilskidoo

As does Yasha Levine's Surveillance Valley. https://surveillancevalley.com/

And I realize anti-establishment innuendo is taboo here, but if yc is focused on bringing forth more products and services to the world, then doing so without understanding what things the world may honestly want or need, without some pretext of empathy for the source of those wants and needs, is as reprehensible as it is ineffective. When nobody today is satisfied, to the extent the richest man Bezos feels the need to upgrade his life partner, then we are not doing ourselves any justice in thinking technology can either save or replace dying virtue.

Envisioned by Russian in 2011: https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp...

⬐ unicornporn

Not to be picky, but Morozov is from Belarus…

> A smart-city architecture allows “better” information-sharing, strong identity management, better blanket surveillance as well as targeted surveillance, it benefits law-enforcement with better access to location tracking.

> In conclusion, one doesn’t have to wear a tinfoil hat to understand that these solutions will swing both ways. And some are going to get hurt. To all those who think smart-cities will liberate humanity from repressive regimes, please think again.

For a deeper perspective on this point, I'd highly recommend reading "The Net Delusion" by Evgeny Morozov [1]. He focuses on the moral/ethical/political/sociological aspects of modern technological change and systems that other optimistic authors intentionally fail to cover.

> Smart cities implemented over complex self serving bureaucratic processes can become an electronic manifestation of stupidity written in code.

This sentence immediately reminded me of Kafka's "The Castle."

The future could be either empowering or oppressive, or both to some degree, depending largely on how we legislatively control the technological systems we're building.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp...

> It's not just 1-way, 2-way, or many-to-many; it's all those things simultaneously.

Hmm. But isn't the internet/new media heavily balanced towards the 1-way communication model ? Does sharing, re-sharing and commenting in the void qualify as 2-way or m2m or is it just an amplifier ? The potential is here but does it really solidify into existence for the vast majority or is just for the vocal groups (NGO, journalists, lobbyists, etc.) ?

I have in mind the net delusion [0] and the submarine model [1].

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp... [1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

⬐ maverick_iceman

I think there's only a small percentage of the population who have original and interesting things to say. Internet does enable those people to reach an audience which was much harder earlier without institutional support.

⬐ cobbzilla

there is no question that old-school broadcast media is 1-to-many. it's physically impossible to send a signal upstream in those models (doesn't stop me from yelling at the TV, but I do know it's futile). we can quibble about how much the internet is 1:1 vs 1:N vs N:M, but the fact that we even ask these questions makes the internet a qualitatively different kind of media.

as an aside, what are we doing right here, right now? HN uses the internet as a print medium. As a blog it is 1:N, and as a discussion forum is N:M. So yeah, it's complex :)

The internet is a tool, not a political method.

I think you'll find this book interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-m... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.html...

https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp...

> But the internet allows people on the so called fringe to see that they may not be the fringe after all.

Not really, the internet also has that loudest voice syndrom.

> You can say anything online and that widens the scope of what is considered acceptable discourse.

Or you get drowned in an endless sea of information, a dot in the noisegraph.

> Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.

Can't comment on that as I don't live in the US :/ but it's an interesting point. How effecient can they really be at hiding something vs ignoring it.

From a few recent posts around here I guess he's not very liked in the tech bubble circles, but in case anyone is interested in reading a tiny bit more about this topic, I recommend Morozov's book http://www.amazon.com/The-Net-Delusion-Internet-Freedom/dp/1...

this book could possibly change a bit your utopian view of liberating through radio waves and so. especially the historic examples about communism times in europe.

http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp/...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-mor...

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.htm...