In Lanier's third chapter, he delves into how the idea of a person in a web 2.0 environment can impact decisions. Specifically, he launches into the idea that when all opinions are voiced on a topic and then averaged out, the best decision is reached. Though Lanier calls this an example of democracy, he does not mean it in an electoral sense. The idea is that the internet can be a massive peer-review network for anything and everything to ensure that humanity is putting forward ideas that are as close to the truth as possible.

One major issue with this concept developing is censorship. Even in nations that are nominally democratic, there is often a great deal of state censorship. With such governments well in place, it may be awhile before the true goal of the idea can be reached. The question now is if endless feedback and changes will allow us to actually reach the truth. For example, Wikipedia could function somewhat like this idea, yet it is not accepted as an academic source. Is this just an example of growing pains, or will a hive-mind knowledge bank never be the definitive source that we want it to be?

Digital Columbus

In the second chapter of Lanier's book, the focus is on the divide between virtual minds and human minds, the shrinking gap between them, and the impact of our fascination with them. Lanier cites the human fascination with consciousness that is not human and the way that a newly awakened consciousness would react to humanity. Though he does not deem them important enough to cite, there are enough Hollywood movies based off of this idea to show that this fascination extends beyond Silicon Valley philosophers and into the realm of the general public.

After reading this chapter, which is primarily focussed on the history of self-aware computing and the future of it, my thoughts turned to the way that we currently treat the machines that simplify our lives in so many ways. I have personally been witness to people actually physically hitting computers when they are not performing the way that the user expected them to. I found this interesting because it shows a lack of respect for tools. Some of it may be a function of the generation gap that still exists, with some people growing up with a mouse in their hands and others aching for the days of the slide rule. As the previous generation, who have not wholely accepted the presence of the computer in everything, passes away, the planet will be populated by those who have grown up using technology for nearly everything. It will be interesting to see if this generation will be as concerned with the possibility of a machine becoming self-aware as the previous one had been. Will the abuses of the current computer users be remembered by the intelligent machine?

This eventually led me to the concept of a post-colonial relationship between man and machine. The possiblity of a machine evolving to the point that it is not only self-aware, but aware enough to identify with predecessors of a more primitive type intrigues me. I look forward not so much to a future with a sentient robot to serve me, but instead one where machines have eveolved to the point of being able to create art. To see if another sentience would identify the same values as art would be fascinating.

The Masked Commenter

In Lanier's first chapter, he lays out some of the problems that he sees with the digital world. Though he spends time discussing how conventions that were put in place in the past limit us now and can continue to do so in the future, such as the 'file' metaphor, I'd like to discuss the other main portion of the chapter. Lanier lays out a few specific issues that he has, most of which I agree with. The one point of his that I'd like to focus on is his comment on 'trolling'. Though he doesn't offer his own personal definition, trolling, according to urbandictionary, is "Being a prick on the internet because you can." This definition works well enough for my discussion here, so we will use that. My contention here, which was sparked by the Lanier chapter, is the pressure that the web 2.0 environment and commenting in general can stifle the best opinions of content creators. Opening up articles, videos, etc, to public, anonymous discussion both in comments and in other blogs that can be created by anyone could mean that someone who previously would have worked to perfect their voice in a more confined setting could be discouraged by anonymous attacks from random individuals. Though it could be said that people who want to publish content should be prepared to face criticism and defend their stance or views, the anonymity of the internet has bred a culture of random and thoughtless attacks. These attacks can also cause talented individuals who are already established to lose control and lash out in return, which creates a sad cycle of insult that prevents valuable information from being created and shared. I'd like to cite the somewhat infamous example of the sports blog Deadspin and author Buzz Bissinger (http://deadspin.com/385770/bissinger-vs-leitch). Mr. Bissinger has written for magazines, newspapers, and books, all of which underwent a great deal of review, mostly favourable. However, he did not agree at all with, a) the fashion and content of a blog's reporting and b) the ability for anyone to leave a comment on an article, which, though they are moderated, are held to a standard somewhere around a locker room level of discussion. Bissinger eventually stopped writing for a period of time after this incident. While I don't agree with Mr. Bissinger here completely, I do see the larger problem of 'the mob' stifling the greatest work that can be put on the internet. Media 2.0 may need to break out of its 'lock-in', as Lanier puts it, of constant discussion for it to continue to grow. I see trolling as a rot in this development, and hope that it can be controlled.