Nicholas Carr Says Tech 'Utopia Is Creepy' (cio.com)

itwbennett writes: It probably won't come as a big surprise that Mr. 'IT Doesn't Matter' isn't a big fan of Silicon Valley's vision for the future, a future defined by autonomous cars and the inevitable rise of robots. In his new book, 'Utopia is Creepy: And Other Provocations,' Carr takes aim at the irrational exuberance of Silicon Valley, where tech is the answer to every problem. One of the exuberances that Carr takes particular exception to is the notion that social media is a better, freer form of media than 'old' media, which maybe makes sense coming from a former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review, but he does have a point. "The old gatekeepers, to the extent they were gatekeepers, have been replaced by companies like Facebook and Google and companies that really now have become the new media companies and are very much controlling the flow of information," Carr told CIO.com's Clint Boulton.

Comments

Re:I like technology

[omnichad]

don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything

Not all technology is electronics. Hammers, spoons, and matches are all technology.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The most annoying part is that, when the humans are asked why these decisions are so horrific, they often have a difficult time answering

Most likely, you're confused because you're presupposing the moral framework you consider appropriate: act-based utilitarianism. You then evaluate what people say by that framework

But most people are not an act-based utilitarian. They may be a rule-based utilitarian, where firm moral rules ignore the details of the act. They could be a Rawlsian (if they care about outcomes), not trying to maximize total utility, but instead to maximize minimal utility (that is, maximize how well the worst off person is.) Or, they could be a Kantian, and believe that moral codes are based on respect for individuals right, regardless of consequence.

But, in any of those cases, you're likely to have an issue because of, well, an axiomatic decision you disagree with at the onset of the reasoning process.