My Response to Digital Maoism

Jaron Lanier makes some excellent points in his argument against established businesses in Central Cambridge. His arguments center on the idea that aggregate sources of information are presently, and will always be inferior to reading or seeing information in its proper context. He says, “These Web-based designs assumed that value would flow from people.” This seemed to be a correct assumption, as people still are the sole input for aggregate programs or ‘hive minds’. In fact, at one point it was still clear that the Web was made of people and that ultimately value always came from connecting with real humans. However, in recent history, the aim of some programs has been “to remove the scent of people, as if it were speaking to us as a supernatural oracle. This is where the use of the Internet crosses the line into delusion.” Is that a true statement? Have people invested their trust and surrendered their disbelief? My answer would be maybe; almost certainly in some cases. I have seen classmates, at MIT no less, form paper topics and theses based on a wiki search of a subject. Of course, every person who tried this was berated by his or her teacher, but still, it shows the blind trust that some people have shown in this aggregate, all-knowing, being known as wikipedia.

Is our pursuit for knowledge any different than it always has been? Lanier talks of scholars, whom are essentially believed when they publish a paper or journal article. In days before the internet, everyone got their information from the newspapers and the TV news. This of course, was regulated by the government and as a result, when it was beneficial to our country, we would see or read what they wanted us to read.

I do agree with Lanier on many aspects of his arguments, but I could be assuming all of his ‘empirical data’ about this subject is true. Does that make me any different than the person who wrote his thesis with wikipedia? Well, sort of, but it’s definitely in the same ballpark. The actual reason I agree with Lanier on many of his points is because I have seen the same results from collectivism that he has. The public is stupid; I have no doubt in that. Public masses of people can cause mass hysteria or even riots based on collective stupidity. This is why it’s illegal to yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded building without due cause, not necessarily because you would be making a false statement, but because the 100 people next to you, instead of looking around and saying to themselves, “Hmm, I don’t see a fire,” would panic and flood the exits assuming the building is actually on fire. One area I slightly disagree with Lanier on is that I believe the person, in general, is pretty smart. I do, however, completely agree that the public is stupid.

American Idol…as a singer and human being I can’t even begin to express my shear hatred of this show. It was formed under a great idea, ‘to find the best singer in America and give them a record deal.’ The only real problem with the process is that they let the people decide. This was possibly the music industry’s biggest mistake, because before A.I. (coincidence?), the music companies told us who was cool or which album we should buy/download. Now, there’s no doubt people were left behind in the system of old, but for the most part, we had some pretty good music. But, look at what happens now that we let the public preemptively decide who should be famous…If you have anymore doubts about public stupidity, I have two words for you…William Hung.