Blurts

I have been reading a couple of books that on the surface might seem contradictory. The first, “The End of Power”, argues that traditional institutions (government, major religious denominations, newspapers, unions, etc.) have lost respect, members, moral authority, etc. and the second, “The Internet is not the answer”, argues greater power is consolidating in fewer and fewer organizations (Amazon, Google, Apple, Comcast) and the consequences include great disparities in wealth and influence. The first appears to argue that power is becoming distributed to the point of anarchy and the second that power has become concentrated to the point of obliterating the middle class.

Trying to find a way to put these two positions together other than concluding the data referenced by one author or the other was fabricated has caused me some puzzlement. Here is one integrative position that occurs to me. I do not believe the author arguing the end of power focuses enough on the role of technology. Technology is not only disruptive to the powers that be, but technology has also proven to concentrate power/wealth across a broad collection of areas. Hence you have broad disruption and a narrow, but substantial accumulation. Perhaps these are interrelated rather than independent phenomena.

I recommend that edtech types read the book “The Internet is not the answer”. I make this suggestion because it appears the early potential of the Internet is not reflected in the current reality. How and why this has happened is the topic of this book. The problem as I see it is promoting edtech based on original promise rather than present reality. There is danger in naively encouraging practices without understanding the implications of these practices. 

I will warn you about the Keen book. I think he plays on fears and he uses unnecessary tactics (e.g., contend Zuckerberg is autistic and cannot really understand social needs). However, the data and referencing seem fairly solid. Understanding how things work, even if this involves a different perspective on things familiar to you, can be helpful. 

I have been reading Andrew Keene’s recent book “The Internet is not the answer.” This book continues Keene’s criticism of Internet trends (first book – Cult of the Amateur). Keen is actually a tech guy, but argues the promise of the Internet has been corrupted. The book is probably a bit alarmist, but that is the way one attracts attention. Many troubling trends are identified.

One interesting perspective Keen offers is the contrast between the early and present stages of the Internet (not the same as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0). The origins were identified by the presence of academics and dreamers. The second stage is mostly populated by entrepeneurs. The first stage is argued to be motivated by empowerment and openness and the second by consolidation and wealth accumulation. Keene argues the Internet transition has failed in its original promise and plays a significant role in growing financial and power inequities.

I agree to some extent and believe we have collectively done this to ourselves. Rather than being impressed by the supposed technological sophistication of the digital natives, I am frustrated by their naïveté. Not having experienced the growth of technology through the 80s and probably having accepted their present fate without learning the history of the Internet, many may not appreciate the original dream of an open net. The various meanings of free may not be apparent to those who know no better. 

Educators eager to appear innovative and perhaps ignorant of this history may end up tacitly endorsing services/companies that entrap rather than empower. This is likely an extreme concern, but likely a possibility should education, social interaction, and commerce become narrowly focused on a decreasing number of providers.

The focus of attention on coding may be somewhat off the mark as a 21st century skill. How the Internet works, how we are allowed access, and the role of online commerce in the general economy are likely of far greater general significance.

I discovered this in a Tweet and found it difficult to believe. I downloaded the extension and was amazed. A young programmer has developed a browser extension that identifies names of politicians appearing in web content and provides the option of exploring the financial donations received by this individual. This possibility immediately made me think of what we teach students regarding content evaluation – understand the possible motives of the author. It would seem reasonable that the same logic would apply to politicians.

I researched a senator from North Dakota and found the major source of funds was oil and gas.

Andrew Keen is sometimes considered anti-technology, but his perspective is more why tech is not living up to the original perspective. You may have found references to his earlier book – Cult of the Amateur (why free puts professionals and everyone else on equal footing – my interpretation).

He has a new book, but I thought you might find this interview with Leo Laporte to be a good introduction to his perspective.