Jaron Lanier Thinks Things May Have Gotten Better, or Facebook 'Might Have Won Already' (gq.com) 75
Jaron Lanier helped design "Together" mode for Microsoft Teams, "where he has a post as an in-house seer of sorts," according to a recent profile in GQ. ("Initially he'd conceived of Together mode as a way to help Stephen Colbert — in whose house band Lanier sometimes performs when he's in New York — figure out how to host his show in front of a remote audience...")
But Lanier also "might be the last moral man in Silicon Valley," they write, delving into both his support for universal basic income and his harsh view of social media, which they summarize succinctly: "in exchange for likes and retweets and public photos of your kids, you are basically signing up to be a data serf for companies that can make money only by addicting and then manipulating you."
But GQ also writes that Lanier now sees some signs of hope, describing his current work as "to not fuck the future over, you know?" He said he noticed a change in how Facebook was both thought of and written about. Take the congressional hearings that were held in July with Mark Zuckerberg and other big tech leaders. "What struck me," Lanier later told me, "was how alone the four CEOs were — no friends or allies anywhere in politics or society. They've creeped everyone out with their opaque form of influence. Even Big Tobacco had friends...."
I asked him: Had he noticed a change in his own relationship to technology since the pandemic started? He said that he had. "I think people are spending more time in a self-directed way by connecting with others on video chat or things like that than they are passively receiving a feed," he said. "And so I actually think things have gotten a little better." The fact that people were using computers not to pass time in algorithm-driven loops but to talk to one another, and then perhaps go outside, was a source of optimism for him.
Lanier says he also feels that by provoking real and meaningful questions, some social movements are "reintroducing us to reality..." Technology was doing, as it did every once in a while, what Lanier wanted it to do: giving people a chance to be better, to know more, to lead more informed and compassionate lives... So what about the future? I asked. The thing I'd come to talk about. Was the future going to be okay?
Lanier, in effect, said: Maybe...
Every day Google and Facebook and other tech companies become more powerful and sophisticated by analyzing you and your choices... They don't even really acknowledge that you are contributing, as if artificial intelligence came from nowhere, instead of from data derived from you and me. "In the information age," Lanier said, "we're all workers and consumers and entrepreneurs at the same time." What if, Lanier suggested, we got paid for our labor in this system? By recognizing the roles we play in building the future, Lanier said, we might give ourselves a chance to be meaningful participants in it. "When a person is empowered to make a difference, they become more of a full person," he said. "They awaken spiritually."
That would be the best case. All of us building the robot future together, and being compensated for our time and our work while doing it.
And...the worst case? I asked.
"Facebook might have won already, which would mean the end of democracy in this century," Lanier said. "It's possible that we can't quite get out of this system of paranoia and tribalism for profit — it's just too powerful and it'll tear everything apart, leaving us with a world of oligarchs and autocrats who aren't able to deal with real problems like pandemics and climate change and whatnot and that we fall apart, you know, we lose it. That is a real possibility for this century. I'm not saying I think it's what'll happen, but I wouldn't count it out. There's evidence every single day that it's what's happening...." [D]isinformation goes from Twitter to Fox to the social media feeds of the president, and the cycle begins anew. Look at how powerful these platforms could be, to the point where "the sway of media is more powerful than the experience of reality — that people can be watching hundreds of thousands die from this virus and yet believe it's a hoax at the same time, and integrate those two things. That's the food for evil," Lanier said...
But then, here the two of us were. Him in Berkeley, me in Los Angeles, but still somehow together. A modern miracle most modern people have learned to sneer at. Not Lanier, who still sees the wonder, and the potential, of these stupid fucking screens, no matter what.
But Lanier also "might be the last moral man in Silicon Valley," they write, delving into both his support for universal basic income and his harsh view of social media, which they summarize succinctly: "in exchange for likes and retweets and public photos of your kids, you are basically signing up to be a data serf for companies that can make money only by addicting and then manipulating you."
But GQ also writes that Lanier now sees some signs of hope, describing his current work as "to not fuck the future over, you know?" He said he noticed a change in how Facebook was both thought of and written about. Take the congressional hearings that were held in July with Mark Zuckerberg and other big tech leaders. "What struck me," Lanier later told me, "was how alone the four CEOs were — no friends or allies anywhere in politics or society. They've creeped everyone out with their opaque form of influence. Even Big Tobacco had friends...."
I asked him: Had he noticed a change in his own relationship to technology since the pandemic started? He said that he had. "I think people are spending more time in a self-directed way by connecting with others on video chat or things like that than they are passively receiving a feed," he said. "And so I actually think things have gotten a little better." The fact that people were using computers not to pass time in algorithm-driven loops but to talk to one another, and then perhaps go outside, was a source of optimism for him.
Lanier says he also feels that by provoking real and meaningful questions, some social movements are "reintroducing us to reality..." Technology was doing, as it did every once in a while, what Lanier wanted it to do: giving people a chance to be better, to know more, to lead more informed and compassionate lives... So what about the future? I asked. The thing I'd come to talk about. Was the future going to be okay?
Lanier, in effect, said: Maybe...
Every day Google and Facebook and other tech companies become more powerful and sophisticated by analyzing you and your choices... They don't even really acknowledge that you are contributing, as if artificial intelligence came from nowhere, instead of from data derived from you and me. "In the information age," Lanier said, "we're all workers and consumers and entrepreneurs at the same time." What if, Lanier suggested, we got paid for our labor in this system? By recognizing the roles we play in building the future, Lanier said, we might give ourselves a chance to be meaningful participants in it. "When a person is empowered to make a difference, they become more of a full person," he said. "They awaken spiritually."
That would be the best case. All of us building the robot future together, and being compensated for our time and our work while doing it.
And...the worst case? I asked.
"Facebook might have won already, which would mean the end of democracy in this century," Lanier said. "It's possible that we can't quite get out of this system of paranoia and tribalism for profit — it's just too powerful and it'll tear everything apart, leaving us with a world of oligarchs and autocrats who aren't able to deal with real problems like pandemics and climate change and whatnot and that we fall apart, you know, we lose it. That is a real possibility for this century. I'm not saying I think it's what'll happen, but I wouldn't count it out. There's evidence every single day that it's what's happening...." [D]isinformation goes from Twitter to Fox to the social media feeds of the president, and the cycle begins anew. Look at how powerful these platforms could be, to the point where "the sway of media is more powerful than the experience of reality — that people can be watching hundreds of thousands die from this virus and yet believe it's a hoax at the same time, and integrate those two things. That's the food for evil," Lanier said...
But then, here the two of us were. Him in Berkeley, me in Los Angeles, but still somehow together. A modern miracle most modern people have learned to sneer at. Not Lanier, who still sees the wonder, and the potential, of these stupid fucking screens, no matter what.
Sounds like... (Score:1, Insightful)
Incoherent summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Sounds like... (Score:1)
Re: Sounds like... (Score:2)
Re: Sounds like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook and the trolls win again (Score:2)
You're just feeding an entire herd of trolls. Only two things obvious from their comments, and the more relevant is that none of them have read any of Lanier's books.
Having said that and having read three of his books, I'm not sure that I'd recommend them. Lanier is thoughtful enough, but kind of all over the place and I don't feel like he has any clear and practical solution approaches. I know mine have low probabilities, but I thought his were even lower.
Considered including capsule reviews of his books t
Re: (Score:1)
180,000 dead.
Keep drinking the kool aid american dipshits.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I did. Twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean you get to vote three times in elections?
Re: (Score:2)
Your ridiculous anecdotal evidence is so beyond the pale. And you linking to the CDC page as some kind of "evidence" of foul play in the statistics just proves that you have very low ability to reason, and no critical thinking skills. You seem to have a twisted agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a kind of infrastructure guy, but not too good at promoting his books. I stumbled across him about six years back and have been keeping an eye out since then. I largely disagree with him, but he's pretty good at provoking thoughts.
Also trolls. The degree to which this story has stirred up the trolls is the strongest endorsement I've seen of his views. They apparently hate him a lot. Or maybe that's just because one of his recent books was a pretty nasty attack on the social media the trolls love to abu
Church of Woke (Score:2)
We are all paid already (Score:4, Interesting)
What if, Lanier suggested, we got paid for our labor in this system?
How are we not paid?
I have deceived a HUGE amount of value from using Twitter, Instagram, even the dreaded Facebook. I use all those systems for free, as I have done for years, all while consuming all kinds of media and text from them...
It seems very wrong to pretend like people using those systems do not gain any value from them, just because what they gain is not currency they can spend.
Yes they are building systems on our data, but many of us have built whole LIVES around the systems we use for free. Frankly I'd say it's a wash.
Re:We are all paid already (Score:4, Insightful)
And what do you do? (Score:2)
You have built your life around Twitter, Instagram, even the dreaded Facebook? Jesus fucking Christ.
Perhaps "built a life around" is strong - but I have used them to heavily augment my life, yes.
For professional use Twitter can be invaluable to get news very quickly, that it might otherwise take you a while to find.
I used to use Usenet a lot to connect with various interest groups - for better or for worse now, Facebook Groups fulfill a lot of that role, keeping me connected with other people that have simi
Re:We are all paid already (Score:5, Funny)
Truer words have rarely been written.
Re: (Score:2)
The same sentiment that people should all be paid the same is how we get nice things like free mass transit and single payer healthcare. Nice work, comrade! You've earned your rubles for the month.
Re: (Score:1)
Let's start with you use my data to pay for your experience. Or at least you do when you allow your contact lists and other data to let them build shadow profiles of me.
Even if you said "I am getting paid", you could, you know, get paid more.
Re: We are all paid already (Score:1)
Re: We are all paid already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As a LIVING HUMAN you get to live in a bubble of your own making.
No different. Some people can see the bubble, some can't. Social media is just another aspect the bubble can take, but social bubbles were around long before social media.
Re: We are all paid already (Score:2)
Last moral man in Silicon Valley? (Score:1)
Haha, good one. There's never been a moral man in Silicon Valley.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Last moral man in Silicon Valley? (Score:1)
I dislike social media but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US literally can't succeed with a two party system. It just slowly, over time, becomes more and more polarized.
We could fix this with ranked choice voting, but both parties are satisfied with the current system when it works to their advantage, so nothing ever gets changed.
Re: (Score:3)
...but both parties are satisfied with the current system when it works to their advantage, so nothing ever gets changed.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:3)
The US literally can't succeed with a two party system. It just slowly, over time, becomes more and more polarized.
We could fix this with ranked choice voting, but both parties are satisfied with the current system when it works to their advantage, so nothing ever gets changed.
I don't know if ranked choice voting would solve things—the parties would still probably find ways to tilt things in their favor—but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. I think we need a Constitutional Amendment that forbids Congress from structuring itself according to party. As it stands, the Constitution gives Congress fairly broad authority to structure itself and decide on "officers." The Whip position should not exist. Of course, my proposition is less likely to occur than
Re:I dislike social media but... (Score:5, Insightful)
>"We could fix this with ranked choice voting, but both parties are satisfied with the current system when it works to their advantage, so nothing ever gets changed."
I am not sure if it will be completely fixed, but it would GREATLY help. The two existing parties are way out of touch and only two parties simply can't match the huge jumble of issues. For most of us, we have to settle for a few major positions and all the others we don't necessarily agree with come along for the ride. Even the threat of additional parties would help to reform things.
Fortunately, the States can do this, from primaries to general elections, without any change in the Constitution or federal laws. We desperately need additional parties and the ability to vote FOR candidates [knowing our vote will always count] instead of just always voting against who we hate the most...
https://fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: I dislike social media but... (Score:2)
" For most of us, we have to settle for a few major positions and all the others we don't necessarily agree with come along for the ride. "
Wait, you're suggesting that in a democracy of 300 million, we might be required to simply compromise, prioritize the things that are the most important, and not all get exactly what we want?
What a curious idea.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Wait, you're suggesting that in a democracy of 300 million, we might be required to simply compromise, prioritize the things that are the most important, and not all get exactly what we want?"
It doesn't matter how many people are in the representative republic. Any single decision will ultimately be a compromise when it comes to legislation. But we shouldn't have to be forced to pick between just two choices to represent dozens of important issues. When the two are opposite on most issues, and nearl
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel that stance is compelling to most voters, free free to start your own independent party. It's worked a few times.
Personally, I think most people are able to prioritize their issues to the point that they're willing to pick one out of two (or not vote, which may be a significant %).
In a parliamentary system (or any multiparty system, really) you have a wide swath of parties, each with "their issue" (generally one, sometimes a few). The voters cast their votes for which of the PARTIES represent
Re: (Score:2)
>"If you feel that stance is compelling to most voters, free free to start your own independent party. It's worked a few times."
That was my point- that there is no point in any important election, unless the voting system is changed. Otherwise, nobody will vote for a 3rd party because it takes votes away from their next best choice and gives it to a party they do NOT like. The spoiler effect is really bad. Having additional parties is important, but not AS important as the THREAT of additional parties
Re: (Score:2)
Other bad stuff happens when the radical left takes over: welfare being a better deal than working and insanely high taxes.
For most people, taxes have gone up under Trump; they had one year of reduction, and they've been higher than before since. Only for the wealthy, who are deriving the most benefit from government, have taxes gone down. So who is it who raises taxes again?
It's like Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
People whine about how big Amazon is, how rich Bezos is, when all they have to do is stop buying from Amazon. Problem solved.
But nope, we'll keep whining about how awful Facebook is yet keep on using it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use Facebook but now I feel like I can't protect my family from the BS it spreads. I sincerely wish Facebook a fast death.
It's not that it allows lies, it's worse than that, Facebook's algorithms actively spread disinformation. Facebook is confirmation bias at it's worst. It has stepped in and supported climate denial, it explicitly allows politicians to flat out lie on it's platform. It has been a dream for anti-vaxxers - the damage there is already done.
Facebook can literally now end up being resp
Re: (Score:2)
That's called a coordination problem [fs.blog]. If you boycott Amazon, it will have no noticeable effect. The only way to have an effect is for everyone to boycott Amazon. But there is no feasible way of arranging that.
Workers manage it via strikes, but customer strikes are nearly impossible to arrange.
Facebook is to political influence... (Score:1, Funny)
...what an overhead electrical wire is to falling bird shit. It may be a convenient place for birds to perch and produce shit, but they're still going to shit regardless of whether or not they have wires to land on. People go on Facebook so they can read/share things which resonate with the beliefs they already hold, and if they didn't get that from Facebook - they'd find it elsewhere. It's not as if there's any shortage of echo chambers on the internet.
"I'm going on the internet to have my political bel
Re: (Score:2)
I thought people went on Facebook to share updates with friends and family. Guess that's not what it's used for nowadays, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh I see this amongst the youths in my area. They're all on Instagram, not Facebook!!!
The question is what will be next and whether or not Facebook will just buy it.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
TL;DR (Score:2)
That post was almost as long as the iTunes EUL, so ... I'm guessing no one read it either.
Well, if Facebook does not fuck up the future... (Score:4)
... then Microsoft or Google certainly will. These large enterprises always turn out evil after a while, no exception.
Backslashdot thinks.. (Score:2)
What? Who the heck is Jaron Lanier? I'm waiting for the slashdot article "Backslashdot thinks [insert something profound]" .. should happen fairly soon considering how brilliant my opinions are .. in particular the one where I pointed out that Java apps should have been written in C++ (though it got strangely marked Troll by russian agents).
Everywhere (Score:2)
>"[D]isinformation goes from Twitter to Fox to the social media feeds of the president"
And from CNN to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Facebook, NYT, WP, and the social media feeds of the democratic candidates and just about everywhere.
Jon Katz... (Score:1)
Jon Katz, is that you?
Been missing long, font page text that inspires debate since early 2000s.
Clickbait and FUD all in one (Score:2)
Stop Canonizing Pundits (Score:2)
Look, this guy seems like a smart dude and his arguments are worth paying attention to. But we need to stop this ridiculous habit of finding someone who happened to predict one or two things right in the past or who impress the reporter as sages.
Look at the results of the superforcasters work or prediction markets or anything in that area and you'll see that even the smartest people get things wrong all the time and that you definitely don't make accurate predictions by just vaguely speculating and telling
I REALLY LOVE FUCK (Score:1)
And so (Score:2)
"in exchange for likes and retweets and public photos of your kids, you are basically signing up to be a data serf for companies that can make money only by addicting and then manipulating you."
Ironic, coming from a guy devoted to universal basic income.