Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Internet, Technology, Information, Development, Literature, Books, People, Human

Pages: 10

Words: 2750

Published: 2020/12/08

New WowEssays Premium Database!

Find the biggest directory of over
1 million paper examples!

Technology is among the key concepts that have lead to the change of the mode of thinking and interpreting ideas. Linier brings his aspects of personality to a critical examination of the “Web 2.0” system of information. Looking at the paperback of the book it is certain that he is “not anti-technology in any sense but rather pro-human. His main concern is not the Internet as a whole, but he looks at the particular designs. According to Lanier, the designs “tend to pull people into life patterns that gradually vitiate the ways in which each of us survives as an individual”. In the opening chapter, he categorically states his position rather clearly: “the so-called web 2.0 ideas are stinkers, and we ought to discard them while we still can.” The concept of human adaptation to become machines is paramount in the current society that engages most of the things in technology.
For those that have on no occasion heard the term “web 2.0,” it denotes to a mode of website that accentuates user involvement and sharing. The “content” of a web 2.0 site originates from the similar individuals who use it in daily activities. The content includes the posts and commentaries on any blog, YouTube videos, the Yelp reviews, the material on Wikipedia, the Facebook post, and Twitter tweets. The supporters of web 2.0 rejoice the democratization of material these sites tolerate, but Lanier docks some star reservations (Linier 3). This Web 2.0 simply describes World Wide Websites that employ the use of technology that goes beyond the conventional static pages of the earlier websites. It was first coined by Darcy Di Nucci, but credit has for the years been given to Dale Dougherty for originating the term. It was popularized O’Reilly at a 2004 Web 2.0 O’Reilly Media conference. Although the Web 2.0 seems to suggest a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not necessarily and updated to technical specification but it rather brings cumulative changes in the syntax and the way web pages are made and used.
Furthermore, the users of Web 2.0 sites do more interactive work on the internet other than simple informational retrieval. In this type of website technology, apart from merely reading a user if often invited to make a comment on a given subject or post on the website. The users can even create profiles and accounts that they can have some bit of control over and this is very vital because it encourages individual participation. Web 2.0’s increasing emphasis on a number of these enhanced capabilities in web development encourage and entice the user to depend more on their browser mainly on the user interface, file storage system and also the software application system. It is the invention of the Web 2.0 that facilitated the growth of a number of social networking sites like Facebook and tweeter with that have enhanced abilities like posting and tagging.
So then, what exactly does Lanier reason to be wrong with the web 2.0? To be honest, it’s a bit challenging to get a proper grasp of his argument in the initial opening chapters of his book. This is because sometimes it feels like a sequence of very highly confrontational declarations and statements, with some only slight auxiliary substantiation, and all this threaded together in a large stream of consciousness and perception. Lanier predicts in the preface that his words expressed in this book shall many at times get misunderstood by some sloppy readers. To prove his intelligence, he does not make it easy in the very initial chapter for the readers of his book to do otherwise. Possibly that was Lanier’s goal in the first place! He probably wanted to entice the readers to read beyond the first chapter of the book and afterward launch a struggle with his words to try to figure out what Linier was talking about in the book (Linier, 6).
In his other book “Who controls the future”, Jaron Napier postulates that the people in the middle class are increasingly becoming disenfranchised from the economics due to the internet. He declares that by enticing the users to give away vital information about themselves and their possessions in exchange for promises of exchange of free services, firms are accumulating huge sums of data a very low cost. Jaron Napier called these firms “Siren servers” referring to the sirens of Ulysses. He furthers states that instead of the individuals who give away data being rewarded for their contribution to this immense data pool, these Siren servers just amass wealth in the hands of a few individuals. In most cases those that control the data centers where these huge firms store their valuable data. He gives an example of the algorithm used by Google in language translation. He explains that Google amalgamates the previous translations of other people’s online uploads thus giving the user the best guess possible. He explains that the people who are behind this source translations receive no penny for their contribution to this. However, the profits that Google, siren server makes from the increased advert visibility are just incomprehensible. As a solution to this anomaly, Lanier puts across an alternative structure to the web based on a project presented by Ted Nelson in which he proposes the creation of a two-way linking system. The system would just point to the source of any piece of information, at least creating an economy of micropayments that will in the end offer compensation to the data supplier.
Lanier postulates that something started going erroneous with the digital revolution around the turn of the twenty-first century. The World Wide Web commonly referred to as WWW got engulfed by a torrent of inconsequential designs commonly referred to as web 2.0. Lanier connotes that this dogma encourages fundamental freedom on the web’s surface, but that our freedom is ironically more for machines than people. It is in most cases known as “open culture.” However, the inventors of the internet see an opportunity in this venture although Lanier fundamentally criticizes; the inventors of the web envisaged that it would foster easy and quick information access. The web facilitates quick and easy information interchange; it facilitates management of information of a number of companies. By being able to provide all the mentioned services to the public, the investors of the web foresaw that they would earn carousal sums of money through methods like advertising. In this case, the inventors of the web and the accompanying technologies see and opportunity in the invention
Lanier argues that the fateful and unnerving aspect of information technology is that a particular design will occasionally happen to fill a position and, once executed, will turn out to be unalterable. However, Lanier argues that the fateful and unnerving aspect of information technology is that a particular design will occasionally happen to fill a position and, once executed, will turn out to be unalterable. It will develop into a perpetual fixture after on, even when a better strategy might just have taken precedence before the entrenchment moment. A simple infuriation then shatters into a very devastating challenge just because the computer’s raw power is growing exponentially. Computers have become millions of times more influential, and immensely more common and more connected since his career began which was not so very long ago. He further makes an assertion that if you stoop to plant a tree seed and that tree develops extremely fast to an extent of swallowing your entire village prior to the rise of your feet thus in the same manner software presents what at times feels like some level of imbalanced responsibility to technologists. Because the computers are becoming extremely powerful at a rate that is exponential, the designers of these machines together with the programs of the equipment ought to be extremely cautious when making the right design selections. This is because the penalties of the very tiny and initially insignificant choices are quite often amplified to becoming essential, unalterable guidelines of our lives.
Google invented the idea of associating its adverts and searching in its search engine. However, that innovation seems to have stayed beyond the reach of the a group of middle-income traders who also conducted business online. Earliest waves the activity of the web were extraordinarily spirited with a strong quality of the person. A number of individuals formed their personal “homepages,” uniquely different from each other with strange characteristics and properties. This additionally transcribes that once the inventors given digital technologies come up with a program requiring an individual to interact with the computer taking an assumption that it was an individual. The computers always ask you only to accept in your brains that a program could have been conceived. And when an internet design is launched, one that is normally subjected to editing by a great number of people this in the end giving a suggestion that a chance multitude of humans organisms possessing a legitimate idea. The Dissimilar media strategies motivate different abilities in our human nature (Linier, 9).
It is worth noting that philosophies are now finding their way into software. For instance, is pervasive pseudonymity or anonymity or a good thing? It is quite a significant question, since the equivalent philosophies the process humans usually express meaning have been so entrenched in the intertwined software architectures of the Internet might never be got rid of them, or even recall that the things might have been altered. We supposed to try our level best at least to dodge this principally delicate example of imminent lock-in. Lock-in usually makes us disremember our lost freedoms that we might have had in the digital past.And it is made hard to perceive the liberties we might have had in the present digital world. Luckily, difficult as it is, we still can try to alter some philosophy expressions on the verge of getting locked in place using the tools humans use to understand and communicate with each other in the world.
The Finance was heavily transformed by a number of computing virtual storage clouds. Achievement in finance developed progressively by taking advantage of cloud at the outlay of sound principles of finance. The Pop culture has also entered situation known as nostalgic malaise. The internet based culture is getting dominated by a number of insignificant cultural mix up of culture that happened before the coming of the mishaps. Turkle in her book alone together writes about how computers are not tools because they form an integral part of our psychological and social lives. She writes that technology just moderates changes not only in what we do but in how we think. She goes ahead on commenting on the usage of Jean Piaget’s psychology discourse and discusses how the young children learn about computers and how this affects their minds. The second self-was received well by the critics and was also praised for being a thorough and ambitious study (Turkle 14).
In the topic life on the screen, Turkle gives a discussion on how emerging technology in the world especially in Computers affect the way we think, perceive and see ourselves as humans. In her book, she presents that to us the various ways in which machine affect us in everyday life. She further gives a study of how machines have led us to a now prevalent use of cyberspace. She suggests that by assuming deferring personal identities in MUD a computer fantasy game may be therapeutic. She further considers the problems that are expected to arise when using the MUDs. She discusses what in her book what refers to as women’s nonlinear approach to the technology issue calling it soft mastery and another terminology she coined as bricolage, Turkle discusses the problem that might occur when young children pose as adults. It will cause a great societal impact whereby artifacts such as social robots, will be a main focus changing the way people think and react to things.
One result may be a devaluation of authentic experiences in a relationship. Together with Seymour Papert she writes the influential paper she entitled “Epistemological pluralism and revolution of the concrete. Professor Turkle has written a number of other articles on psychoanalysis and culture and a number of articles on the subjective side of the people’s relationship with the technology, especially the technology to do with computers. She is engaged in active study on robots, digital pets and simulated creatures, particularly those designed for children. Thus, as you “are not a gadget” depicts technology as good for the society but not good for the progress of humanity. Turkle’s “Alone together” also discusses the issue of technology but with an inclination to both societal and progress of humanity. This book discusses that technology is very vital to progress of society right from the children to the women. It discusses that it is through technology that the world has managed to advance to a stage it is on currently.
Turkle has taken such a shot in contradiction of technologies that are in many ways the direct offspring of those that she viewed in ultimately optimistic ways only a ten years or so ago. She currently visions the social networks of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks as anti-social technologies that are damaging human dimensions for responsiveness. The platforms are distorting familiarity and are eventually challenging our capabilities and requirements to involve with other human beings at all. According to Turkle people, are even more linked to each other by a number of parallel channels of communication technologies. The similar technology is currently getting us excited and appealing us to get a step back from very deep engagements with each and everyone and be pleased with something altogether shallower (Turkle 34).
Although the technology has got its failures, it is no as such a major hindrance to the progress of mankind. Lanier portrays it as a major hindrance to culture development. Lanier strongly agrees that the internet is not good for the progress of man because it creates an inequality in the society by creating a group of people who are subdued by the others using hoax promises of a better life. These people who own the means of the internet assume great wealth at the expense of the other group creating an economic rift. However, Turkle’s book mainly explains about advances in the technological probably because during the time she wrote her book during the period when internet was not yet well developed. However, more research has to be uncovered to discover whether the internet and technology have an impact on the development of humankind culturally as depicted by Lanier. Sherry Turkle voices a worry cry over the changing conditions and scenarios associated with personal rendezvous with the internet through constant connectivity. She says that, even though, this constant connectivity allows friends, peers and families to stay in touch. However, it has a number of other side effects or removing the privacy space from all those who use it. The effect of this is that, it only favors the collaborative self of the user and makes him feel passionately whole only when connected. Turkle predicts a thorough loss of individualism and the authenticity because of that from becoming the collaborative self and believes that this is totally undesirable.
Linier on the other hand believes that the ideas of the Web 2.0 are utterly pathetic, a little chirpy and possess a cheerful rhetoric that is associated with them. Lanier believes that the ideas embedded in the Web 2.0 is a pessimism that a number of people could be forced to live off their brains. He believes that the ideas associated with the Web 2.0 just makes us receptors of the adverts and rob us of our brain, innovative and creative potentials for free. According to Turkle’s description of technology, in comparison with the analogy presented by Lanier, although they disagree at some point there is a consensus. Especially at that point when they come to present the influence it has on humankind and progress, social, culturally and psychologically. The common ground seems to be the fact that technology is part of humankind, and it is vital to the advancement and growth of humanity.
The internet though described to be a major create the economic rift between the societies; it has got its advantages. The main antagonist to use of computer, Lanier, pointed out to be crucial to the development and progress of humanity. The internet does not only store data and information; it also facilitates the development of very efficient and effective communication. A lot of media articles exist on the internet to give an explanation of the hypotheses that describe the two others. Most of these media articles try to make comparisons between the two ideologies raised by the two authors. These range from internet websites to a number of online electronic books that describe the contribution of the two individual to towards our advances in technology. Lanier, a contemporary antagonist of the internet, argues that the internet is no good for the social-economic development the society as a whole. He later states that he is not against the internet usage but the design of the internet its self. Some of the reasons he points out are true while others are no right as such. For instance, Lanier writes that the internet creates social classes amongst people in the world. He urges that huge companies amass too much wealth trickery and hoax promises they make to the victims. This perception is to a lesser extent correct. However, he fails to explain how bad it is for personal data to be collected by a given internet site. It happens because he ignores the fact that this data can be of good use for the web users like in translation technologies.
Since one of Lanier’s claims was based on the personal data collected by internet websites that he believes was mainly aimed at promoting the individual interest of the internet websites. Of to address this, the relevant authorities should caution these internet sites about the use of the data they normally collect from the users. They both seem to be ambivalent when it comes to the issue of social networks like Facebook and tweeter. Turkle urges these social networks weaken the interpersonal bonds between any given societies. However, this is not true because current research on the subject indicates that the social networks play a significant role in building linkages and bonds in the society.
In conclusion, to build strong interpersonal bonds within the society, communication is of paramount importance and significance. It implies that development of development of versatile communication means to foster this drive should be in place with properly streamlined procedure for usage and data safety. People should be educated about how to use the internet especially when it comes to data storage and use. It will help them to have a choice not give away personal information about themselves to anonymous, and sites they are not sure or avoid improper internet usage. It also contributes to the spread of this participatory information sharing all over the world. It combined with the recent modifications in the lower cost internet access in the developing world has for sure opened new frontiers and possibilities for communication in the society. But it also facilitates websites that give back to the society like charities that have also explored this Web 2.0 as an Avenue to raise funds for relief.

Works cited

Linier, Jaron. You are not a machine. New york, 2011
Turkle, Sherry. Alone:Why we expect technology an less for each other. New york: Basic books, 2011

Cite this page
Choose cite format:
  • APA
  • MLA
  • Harvard
  • Vancouver
  • Chicago
  • ASA
  • IEEE
  • AMA
WePapers. (2020, December, 08) You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/
"You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples." WePapers, 08 Dec. 2020, https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/. Accessed 22 June 2021.
WePapers. 2020. You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples., viewed June 22 2021, <https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/>
WePapers. You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples. [Internet]. December 2020. [Accessed June 22, 2021]. Available from: https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/
"You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples." WePapers, Dec 08, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2021. https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/
WePapers. 2020. "You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples." Free Essay Examples - WePapers.com. Retrieved June 22, 2021. (https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/).
"You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples," Free Essay Examples - WePapers.com, 08-Dec-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/. [Accessed: 22-Jun-2021].
You Are Not A Gadget Essay Examples. Free Essay Examples - WePapers.com. https://www.wepapers.com/samples/you-are-not-a-gadget-essay-examples/. Published Dec 08, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2021.

Share with friends using:

Please remember that this paper is open-access and other students can use it too.

If you need an original paper created exclusively for you, hire one of our brilliant writers!

Related Premium Essays
Contact us
Chat now