December 9th, 2007

Not long ago Nicholas Carr posted a note on his weblog: the first 150 webloggers who left a note would receive an advance copy of his new book, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google. I received mine last week, and just finished reading it today.

If you expect to pick up a book like The Big Switch, and feel fired up and inspired, think again. The same goes if you expect to come away feeling pessimistic or gloomy about our prospects for the future. Carr somehow manages to celebrate a new way of global computing at the same time reminding us that such will probably add to the continuing decline in privacy, not to mention erosion of barriers between man and machine. It is both history lesson and prophesy: looking at what we can expect in the future by examining what happened in the past. It is not meant to stop our progress, but slow us down before we fall off a cliff in our blind enthusiastic race for the Next Best Thing.

The central thesis is technology's impact on society, describing both the intentional and unintentional effects. Equal parts anecdote and thoughtful analysis, Carr takes the reader from the industrial revolution, to the wonders of electricity, Ford's assembly lines, and even into the home. He focuses mainly, though, on the history of computing devices, from earliest machines to today's cloud-based 'utility' computing, which will, eventually banish the traditional client-server computing model in favor of some vast network of utility servers networked via fast and cheap broadband access.

Today, it's hard to imagine computer owners in the United States and other developed countries abandoning their PCs for thin clients. Many of us, after all, have dozens or even hundreds of gigabytes of data on our personal hard drives, including hefty music and video files. But once utility services mature, the idea of getting rid of your PC will become much more attractive. At that point, each of us will have access to virtually unlimited online storage as well as a rich array of software services. We'll also be tapping into the Net through many different devices, from mobile phones to televisions, and we'll want to have all of them share our data and applications. Having our files and sofware locked into our PC's hard drives will be an unnecessary nuisance. Companies like Google and Yahoo will likely be eager to supply us with all-purpose utility services, possibly including thin-client devices, for free–in return for the privilege of showing us advertisements. We may find, twenty or so years from now, that the personal computer has become a museum piece, a reminder of a curious time when all of us are forced to be amateur computer technicians.

At the same time that Carr lays out this new global data hive, he also reminds us of the costs associated with all this nifty, cool, technological innovation. He recounts stories of Yahoo's interaction with China; the continuing concerns about Google and it's lack of transparency regarding privacy; and corporate profiting from the so-called 'crowdsourcing' that takes advantage of unpaid labor to fuel much of this new internet-based 'boom'.

As for the brave new world of the future, where barriers fall, and all races, religions, and peoples mix into the great utopian society all thinkers in the past have always proposed was just around the corner, Carr sees a possible darker outcome.

Not only will the process of polarization tend to play out in virtual communities in the same way it does in neighborhoods, but it seems likely to proceed much more quickly online. In the real world, with its mortgages and schools and jobs, the mechanical forces of segregation move slowly. There are brakes on the speed with which we pull up stakes and move to a new house. Internet communities have no such constraints. Making a community-defining decision is as simple as clicking a link. Every time we subscribe to a blog, add a friend to our social network, categorize an email message as spam, or even choose a site from a list of search results, we are making a decision that defines, in a small way, whom we associate with and what information we pay attention to. Given the presence of even a slight bias to be connected with people similar to ourselves–ones who share, say, our political views or our cultural preferences–we would, like Schelling's hypothetical homeowners, end up in ever more polarized and homogeneous communities. We would click our way to a fractured society.

In many ways, Carr's hypothesis of a 'fractured society' is born out in his own writing. As I read, I was impressed with both the quality of writing, and the depth of the research. However, I also experienced a sense of alienation as I progressed–a feeling that this book was written by one member of a group for other people within that group and that I was, more or less, an intruder being allowed a glimpse into a world not necessarily denied entry, but not allowed until I figured out the secret handshake.

I've been criticized in the past for bringing the 'woman issue' into supposedly unrelated topics, and most likely will be chastised again, but I came away from Carr's book feeling like the book was written for an audience composed of people like Carr: white, upper class, well educated (or well read), affluent or semi-affluent, wired Euro-Oceanic-American men. The one time when a more feminine perspective on the coming new revolution in computing was addressed focused on the impact of electrical appliances in the home earlier in the last century. Rather than free women up to pursue other interests, Carr writes, what happened is that as more time was freed up, standards of cleanliness increased, until women were finding that we were spending the same amount of time on these household chores, regardless of helpful devices. More significantly, our measure of worth became intertwined with these tasks–an unfortunate artifact that still exists today. With women's increasing identification with homework as a measure of worth, we became isolated from each other, as tasks that used to be completed together, in cooperation, were transformed by machines into tasks that drove us into competition–who has the cleanest house, best apple pie, and so on. From competition is a short step to isolation.

The psychic price of the new tools and the new roles they engendered was sometimes high, however. Women labored under escalating pressures: to meet the higher expectations for cleanliness and order, to purchase the latest "must have" appliance, to learn how to operate all of the new machines and keep them in working order. And, for many, electrification brought a new sense of alienation and loneliness into the house. As women took over the work required to keep house, they often found themselves spending more of their time alone, isolated in their suburban residences. They may have had their young children to keep them company, but adult companionship was usually rarer than it had been in the past when homemaking was more of a communal activity.

I expected this theme to be carried through into other discussions in the books, especially considering the 'isolation' of women in an environment where, supposedly, we constitute half the audience. However, we were dropped after this one section. It was both confusing and a little frustrating, and added an ironic element to the book, especially when you read Nick's coverage of Google's 'personalized' search efforts.

By filtering out "the detritus" and delivering only "the good stuff" they allow us to combine fragments of unbundled information into new bundles, tailor-made for audiences of one. They impose homogeneity on the Internet's wild heterogeneity. As the tools and algorithms become more sophisticated and our online profiles more refined, the Internet will act increasingly as an incredibly sensitive feedback loop, constantly playing back to us, in amplified form, our existing preferences.

The increasing filtering of the 'detritus', as Carr so eloquently puts it, is born out in a recent discussion via email with Techmeme's Gabe Rivera where, in a fit of pique, Rivera wrote:

You know, if a gender-neutral (i.e. gender-rigged) version of Techmeme were possible and prudent (most women I've talked to feel otherwise) I bet it would still link very infrequently to your blogs.

a gender-neutral (i.e. gender-rigged) version of Techmeme…

It is the insularity of Carr's viewpoint, reflected strongly in his coverage of the topics that tempers my view of his predictions regarding the direction, and impact, of future happenings in regards to utility computing and the internet. I came away with a feeling that Carr may yet be surprised at what the future brings.

My only other quibble with the book reflects somewhat the same concerns I had with David Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous: the coverage of the topics could have been more comprehensive if the books weren't so small. I think, though, this reflects humanity's growing inability to focus more than a certain period of time on a topic. If both Carr and Weinberger had created larger books, their audiences would have been, conversely, smaller. Carr touches on this, himself, in one of his last chapters, on a merge of man and machine through the use of AI.

The printed page, the dominant information medium of the past 500 years, molded our thinking through, as Neil Postman has written, "its emphasis on logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline." The emphasis of the Internet, our new universal medium, is altogether different. It stressed immediacy, simultaneity, contingency, subjectivity, disposability, and, above all, speed. The Net provides no incentive to stop and think deeply about anything, to construct in our memory that "dense respository" of knowledge that Foreman cherishes. It's easier, as Kelly says, "to Google something a second or third time rather than remember it ourselves." On the Internet, we seem impelled to glide across the slick surface of the data, as we make our rushed passage from link to link.

Perhaps Doris Lessing was right, after all. Perhaps, not.

Neither Carr's filtered viewpoint nor the brevity of the coverage of some topics adversely impacts my appreciation of his excellent writing, and fascinating mix of historical perspective and future view. I can recommend The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google. Buy it as a gift for the A-list "everything is bright, everything is beautiful, the Semantic Web 2.0 rocks" pundit in your life. Oh, and make sure they actually read it.

Updated

I just noticed on the back of the book the disclaimer, Please do not quote for publication without checking against the finished book. I have to assume that, in sending the book to webloggers, Nick doesn't think we count when it comes to the 'quoting for publication' prohibition. As such, I'll leave the quotes included in this review. If you do get the book and these quotes change, please let me know and I'll correct.

December 8th, 2007

Nick Carr writes of Doris Lessing's Nobel acceptance speech where she stated:

What has happened to us is an amazing invention - computers and the internet and TV. It is a revolution. This is not the first revolution the human race has dealt with. The printing revolution, which did not take place in a matter of a few decades, but took much longer, transformed our minds and ways of thinking. A foolhardy lot, we accepted it all, as we always do, never asked: "What is going to happen to us now, with this invention of print?" In the same way, we never thought to ask, "How will our lives, our way of thinking, be changed by the internet, which has seduced a whole generation with its inanities so that even quite reasonable people will confess that, once they are hooked, it is hard to cut free, and they may find a whole day has passed in blogging et cetera?"

Very recently, anyone even mildly educated would respect learning, education and our great store of literature. Of course we all know that when this happy state was with us, people would pretend to read, would pretend respect for learning. But it is on record that working men and women longed for books, evidenced by the founding of working-men's libraries, institutes, and the colleges of the 18th and 19th centuries. Reading, books, used to be part of a general education. Older people, talking to young ones, must understand just how much of an education reading was, because the young ones know so much less.

We all know this sad story. But we do not know the end of it.

Writing about Lessing's speech here is somewhat tantamount to agreeing that, yes, I have stopped beating my husband. I am 'wasting' my time writing to this weblog in response to Lessing's speech, which I first heard about in a weblog, which means, ipso facto, I am reading a weblog and therefore wasting my day away. I can escape the first syllogism by stating, "I have no husband"; the second by asking, how do we determine what is 'worth' and what is 'waste' when it comes to what we read, and how we spend our time? More importantly, who makes this determination?

The internet is no more culpable for people 'wasting' time away than the television was, and the radio before that, and the electric light before that–on back through history marked by one invention or another. Technology does not change culture, as much as technology and culture impact, equally, on each other. As scientists, inventors, and historians have long known and remarked: the time is always ripe for the invention. In other words, the culture drives the invention, which drives the culture, which drives the invention and so on.

It is said that the industrial revolution was based on the invention of the steam engine, but the concept of the steam engine had been around for more than a century before James Watt increased its efficiency, making it viable for industry other than mining. Did his invention change the culture, or was his invention a reflection of a culture, which celebrated both the mechanical and efficient–leading to factories which were the bane of the poor as we left one century for another.

The steam engine did not lead to cruelty; to the abuse of children and adults, alike. It was the culture of the time, which celebrated those who would pull themselves up by their boot straps and didn't see the harm in working people almost to death. After all, there was nothing holding anyone back from becoming a Vanderbilt, Getty, or Gould. Nothing, of course, but no time in which to dream when one is working 16 hour days. Gas lights made working into the night possible, but did not create the mentality that working people long hours was acceptable.

Fast forward in time and we've become a world based on consumption, all because of the invention of the television. However, TV did not drive the culture, but was itself, a victim of the culture. Television got its start following a war when the world had existed in fear and people had suffered depredations, both big and small. Consumerism would have become rampant whether there was television to spread the word, or not. My god, it was our duty to buy in those times. Buying fueled the industry, which created jobs, which generated more buying. What we didn't know, then, is that we were rapidly depleting our natural resources in this orgy of build-buy-build-buy. Yet, ironically enough, it was on television where I first learned of this thing called "environmentalism".

Now it is a new era and new inventions, chief among them the internet and the web, and seemingly from Ms. Lessing's comments, weblogs. All three are being blamed for everything from the lack of interest in education, to the lack of respect for the written word. Yet Amazon has grown fat on the profits of selling that which we supposedly disdain: books. Entire web sites spend most or all of their space providing reviews of, what else, books. The Gutenberg Project actually makes books available online for free.

Ms. Lessing mistakes our assumptions of easy access of books for indifference to books. A very romantic thought, but not a very logical one. Because we don't walk twenty miles through the searing heat to get such books, does not mean we value them less. One should not equate the act of obtaining an item with how much we value that item. Attempt to deny us our books and you will quickly see how fiercely we would fight. I dare say that even the people of Zimbabwe would blink in astonishment at our ferocity.

As for the banalities of this space, among the items I've read this week were those having to do with biofuel generation and the complexities associated with the industry; a story on World War II; articles on local, national, and international topics; several bills pending in Congress, some of key importance to me; of a fight between two families that unfortunately caught a world's eyes. I watched, with some relief, Olbermann's special comment on Bush and Iran; relieved because he has the nation's ear where I don't, but said everything I would have said and more.

I've picked up three new books for my 'must check out' list, not to mention thinking how I could reduce my meat and corn fructose intake. I learned new things–about web graphics, semantics, and other topics dear to my profession, but probably commonplace and seemingly uninteresting to others.

I read several people's writings about their lives and and the lives of others, and though they will never win Nobel prizes for their writing, they do manage to use words in a coherent manner–and entertain, enlighten, inform, anger, sadden, and uplift. Isn't that what all works of writing are supposed to do?

I also started reading Nick Carr's new book, and Doris Lessing's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. I would be curious to know at what point in all of this reading is the moment where I stepped over the line from spending time in banal pursuits, to spending time usefully? What makes one piece of writing more important and therefore more worthy than another?

update

Apologies for misspelling Doris Lessing's name originally. I am more used to writing on Larry Lessig's work, and my spelling was on auto pilot.