Every new major information technology looks like it could change the world and to change it for the better. For more than a century, one information technology has succeeded another in a disruptive way, overshadowing and displacing the previous dominant one with something better and faster. And as Tim Wu points out in his new book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, each of these new technologies, from the telegraph to the telephone to radio and television and beyond, has also promised to improve the lives of individuals or of society as a whole. When the telegraph seemed an interesting novelty to most, Samuel Morse was already driven by the idea that the telegraph would revolutionize communication. Theodore Vail, the driven visionary of the early AT&T, actually believed that enlightened monopoly should be the basis for the public utility of the future. Such a monopoly was necessary to make the United States the best connected nation in the world and bring the connection of voice communication into every household. For Vail, in fact, monopoly was downright patriotic. And when radio came along, it too was seen as a medium for positive social change. People believed that radio would create a virtual community, knitting together people throughout the country and eventually throughout the world.
Given this historical context, it is not really surprising that Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and the social network company’s general spirit includes a sense of large and revolutionary purpose. David Kirkpatrick, in his perceptive history of the first years of Facebook, The Facebook Effect, recounts that a driving force behind Facebook was the drive to create significant cultural change based on the belief that the world was moving toward greater and great transparency. The company embraced the radical belief that “an inevitable enveloping transparency will overtake modern life.” This transparency would promote greater social good: As Zuckerberg explains, “A more transparent world creates a better governed world and a fairer world.”
So why does each new information technology inspire this type of hope? And do subsequent developments validate that hope? Tim Wu suggests that information technologies seem to promise positive social change because they improve, and often broaden access to, communication between people. Such improvements, many people believe, will promote better understanding within the populace and provide more information for addressing social ills. However the history of communications for the past hundred years or so has not shown this to be entirely true.
As Tim Wu expertly points out, technologies that begin as open and free eventually become controlled by one or more large corporations that are bent not just on dominating the marketplace but on making large profits in the process. Thus Facebook’s motto “Don’t be lame,” like Google’s “Don’t be evil,” speaks well of initial intentions but does not anticipate the pressures of our market-driven society. In spite of good intentions both companies have been hit with mounting piles of lawsuits from organizations and political entities both in the US and abroad. While Google’s legal issues are manifold, including copyright laws, antitrust regulations, and privacy rights, Facebook has encountered primarily the privacy issue. Its development platform gave companies a way to promote their goods, but it also extends to those advertisers the right to “share” information about individual users who “like” or “recommend” their products. Thus initial goals of openness and transparency get murkier, and potentially more sinister. David Kirkpatrick points out that even when it first began, the company’s avowed intentions were aggressive and many felt arrogant: “They had the best thing in the world and they were going to dominate everyone.” One can only surmise that the current $50B valuation of the company and its much anticipated IPO will put the full pressures of the market place, quarterly earnings, and the bottom line on this still young but very large company.
Given this historical context, it is not really surprising that Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and the social network company’s general spirit includes a sense of large and revolutionary purpose. David Kirkpatrick, in his perceptive history of the first years of Facebook, The Facebook Effect, recounts that a driving force behind Facebook was the drive to create significant cultural change based on the belief that the world was moving toward greater and great transparency. The company embraced the radical belief that “an inevitable enveloping transparency will overtake modern life.” This transparency would promote greater social good: As Zuckerberg explains, “A more transparent world creates a better governed world and a fairer world.”
So why does each new information technology inspire this type of hope? And do subsequent developments validate that hope? Tim Wu suggests that information technologies seem to promise positive social change because they improve, and often broaden access to, communication between people. Such improvements, many people believe, will promote better understanding within the populace and provide more information for addressing social ills. However the history of communications for the past hundred years or so has not shown this to be entirely true.
As Tim Wu expertly points out, technologies that begin as open and free eventually become controlled by one or more large corporations that are bent not just on dominating the marketplace but on making large profits in the process. Thus Facebook’s motto “Don’t be lame,” like Google’s “Don’t be evil,” speaks well of initial intentions but does not anticipate the pressures of our market-driven society. In spite of good intentions both companies have been hit with mounting piles of lawsuits from organizations and political entities both in the US and abroad. While Google’s legal issues are manifold, including copyright laws, antitrust regulations, and privacy rights, Facebook has encountered primarily the privacy issue. Its development platform gave companies a way to promote their goods, but it also extends to those advertisers the right to “share” information about individual users who “like” or “recommend” their products. Thus initial goals of openness and transparency get murkier, and potentially more sinister. David Kirkpatrick points out that even when it first began, the company’s avowed intentions were aggressive and many felt arrogant: “They had the best thing in the world and they were going to dominate everyone.” One can only surmise that the current $50B valuation of the company and its much anticipated IPO will put the full pressures of the market place, quarterly earnings, and the bottom line on this still young but very large company.
RSS Feed