Want to get the main points of You Are Not A Gadget in 20 minutes or less? Read the world’s #1 book summary of You Are Not A Gadget by Jaron Lanier here.
Read a quick 1-Page Summary, a Full Summary, or watch video summaries curated by our expert team.
Table of Contents
Video Summaries of You Are Not A Gadget
We’ve scoured the Internet for the very best videos on You Are Not A Gadget, from high-quality videos summaries to interviews or commentary by Jaron Lanier.
1-Page Summary of You Are Not A Gadget
It’s better to post on the web under your real name rather than an anonymous username. This will force you to pay attention to what you’re saying and how you say it, which is a good thing for everyone. Many people believe that technology always helps society move forward in positive ways, such as when new inventions make things cheaper or easier for us. The internet has been one of the greatest technological advancements because it allows us to share information across borders without spending much money on CDs or books.
But have people considered the potential downsides of this? Have they thought about how content producers feel when their work is cut up into fragments and mixed together in mash-ups and viral videos? Do you think they appreciate their hard work being transformed like that?
This passage outlines the downsides of technology and internet worship. It explains why Londoners still have to go to work in cramped, overheated subway cars despite having a large city where they can live without being so close together as New Yorkers are. The new trend of crowd-sourced material could lead to a totalitarian state like North Korea because people can use that information against each other if it’s made public enough. The development of robots and the internet could send us all back to a state of serfdom – except for the technology lords, who will be able to control everything better than anyone else ever has before.
Big Idea #1: Technology can become outdated and prevent further development.
In the early 1980s, inventors created a technology for electronically expressing musical notes. This was called MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface). The popularity of this development led to its inclusion in so many technologies that it became impossible to modify without changing all those technologies.
MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) was created to connect different musical instruments together, but it became so popular that it’s still used today. That’s because MIDI is a standard protocol for connecting music devices. It has become so widespread and entrenched in the industry that people have stopped innovating with new technologies.
The initial design is usually imperfect. This happens because the designer may be forced to use existing technology or simply finds it easier to start with a certain solution. The downsides of locked-in products are greater when the initial design involves a large and complex system.
The London Underground is a complex system. It has many interconnected parts that will need to be altered as technology improves. This is because the more complex a system, the more interconnected parts it will have—all of which will need updating as time goes on. For instance, the railroad tunnels in the London Underground were constructed with limited technology from centuries ago and are narrow because of these technological limits.
London’s subway system has a problem. It is too narrow and makes it difficult to install air conditioning units in trains. The tunnels are also too small to widen them, so people have trouble with the heat on their daily commutes.
Big Idea #2: Technology is often glorified, and it’s easy to forget that technology can’t replace individuality.
The Internet has a lot of information, but it’s very scattered. The technology to collect all the information together is being developed now so that we can have one ultimate source for wisdom.
If computers surpass human intelligence, we’ll be able to better understand the world around us and solve some of the biggest problems. This would have a huge impact on society as a whole.
And, the argument goes that if a computer can beat a grandmaster at chess, it won’t be long before computers know everything better than us. Many people who believe in this singularity take these examples as evidence that computers are superior to our brains. But when we worship the power of computers, we forget their limitations. And one limitation is that they limit life to only two options: either/or categories.
For example, on Facebook people’s lives are boiled down to a series of boxes that show their interests and relationships. This makes everyone similar, and limits the possibilities for uniqueness. Another example is computers’ need for human input to give them purpose. Because without us to program them and tell them what information is valuable or not, they’re limited in what they can do with all the knowledge on the web. We shouldn’t deify computers because of this; instead we should explore our own brains which are where creativity comes from.
Big Idea #3: The internet’s open culture has turned original works into interchangeable segments. The original author is often overlooked in this process.
These days, almost everyone has a favorite online mash-up. However, people rarely consider the original songs or videos from which they were created.
The Internet makes it easy for people to repurpose content. People take bits and pieces from other sources and use them in their own work, whether that be shortening a news report or taking parts of two songs to make one song. This is called “free culture.” It’s like creating a collage out of pictures you find online; some may be your own original pictures, but others aren’t. The problem with free culture is that people don’t give credit where credit is due—they just cut and paste without giving the author any recognition. As a result, people are paying less attention to what they’re reading because they expect information to come at them quickly, as well as not being able to remember who wrote what because so much content looks alike now that it’s been mashed up by someone else.
For example, if you are reading an article on the New York Times website, you’re unlikely to click a link that takes you back to the original source. Instead, many people will read condensed versions of articles on other websites or blogs.
This means that some reports are not read in the context they were created, which can lead to misinterpretation. It also means that people don’t have enough time to read a whole newspaper anymore.
When we communicate in fragments, our ideas are less original and of lower quality. This is because people who use digital platforms don’t want to invest time in reading long texts, so they write shorter pieces that better fit the digital format.
For example, bloggers don’t do any original research and just rehash news items from established news websites.
As the quality of content declines, we are left with uninspiring and stale works. This is a tragedy because instead of creating our own movies like Blade Runner, we’d rather just mash up scenes from our favorite hit films.
Big Idea #4: Today, people believe that the collective is more important than individual efforts.
People often take videos from movies and splice them with pictures of cats. It’s a fun way to express yourself, but it reduces the value of information by turning it into mere bits that can be used in any way anyone chooses.
When you treat information in this way, you are implicitly saying that crowd-sourced content is better than the original. The hive mind is supposedly infinitely more intelligent and creative than an individual author’s work. For example, websites like Wikipedia diminish the value of individual authorship by promoting crowd-authored and crowd-reviewed content. Each article has many different authors who contribute their own bit of knowledge to it.
In the future, we may need to rely on crowdsourcing and collective wisdom instead of individual creativity. This could lead to a society like North Korea’s, which is totalitarian.
Because if we suppress individuality and bow down to the collective will, only what the collective deems good will remain. Imagine a world where there’s only one book because people suppressed their individuality.
In order to avoid the pitfalls of collective minds, we should recognize that individuals are superior sources of knowledge. What’s better? One person devoting his entire life to an idea, or millions of people devoting four minutes each? It may be a lot more quantity than quality. No matter how much garbage you add to a pile, it’s still garbage. Einstein is a perfect example: he singlehandedly contributed more to human thought than all Wikipedia contributors combined.
Big Idea #5: Anonymity on the Internet creates an environment that is hostile and unhelpful.
Everyone who has used YouTube is familiar with trolls. They deliberately start arguments or upset people, and often lead to mob mentality.
People are naturally competitive. However, this competitiveness can be negative in some cases. People who feel anonymous online tend to be even more competitive than normal.
People are anonymous when they use the Internet. They can create short-term, pseudonymous identities so that their real names aren’t associated with what they say or do online. Therefore, people don’t take responsibility for what they say and do on the Internet because it’s not tied to them personally.
For example, people often create “flamer” accounts to make offensive comments in complete anonymity. This drive-by anonymity encourages bad behavior on the web. People are attacking others without any connection to their real identity, like a Facebook profile. The consequences can be deadly and include suicides of celebrities who have been harassed by trolls online for years.
However, there are ways to avoid these problems. One way is to incentivize users’ online identities for the good behavior they exhibit, even when they’re using anonymous usernames. This will encourage people to preserve their reputations while also allowing them some privacy. For example, on eBay (company), users who get bad ratings and negative feedback because of poor behavior can’t buy or sell items at low prices anymore.
Big Idea #6: The internet’s design is only beneficial to consumers and companies like Facebook and Google. It does not really help content creators who are trying to make a living online.
We have discussed how the internet has made a lot of information freely available. However, there are some who benefit from this trend. Google and Facebook are two examples of companies that have benefited from free content on the web.
Some companies make a lot of money by using advertising. They collect data about what people want, and their ads are more effective because they’re tailored to the individual.
Facebook is a good example of this. It makes money by analyzing its users’ profiles and showing them ads that they want to click on.
Consumers are the biggest beneficiaries of digital technology. They can access unlimited, cheap or free content on the internet. This is because digital content is easily copied over the internet and distributed to other users for free. For example, if you want a book that’s not available to you legally, there will be websites online where you can download it illegally for free. Or if you don’t want to take that risk, then there’s always Spotify or Netflix which provide legal content at a low cost.
The sheer amount of content available on the internet means that creators have to fight hard to get noticed. For example, there are millions of singers and bands on YouTube, so if you want to be the next big star, you’ll need to devote most of your efforts promoting yourself.
Unfortunately, content creators are not getting paid for their work because consumers want to get things for free.
The Internet has made it easier for people to share and exchange information. This has had a profound impact on the music industry, which is now attempting to adapt to this new environment.
Big Idea #7: Crowd-sourcing information and content can be risky.
As we have seen, in the modern world, it is more important to be part of a group than an individual. Businesses are realizing this and using statistical models to collect information from large groups of people on topics such as investing. They use computers to do this and then use the data they get like search engines for financial information.
YouTube and other content providers use the crowd for their advantage. Instead of paying people to create their own material, they let the crowd do it on its own.
Companies have a divide with their customers and the public.
When hedge funds rely on computers to make their decisions, they are distancing themselves from what they’re actually investing in. When companies like YouTube let people submit videos for free, it means that the company doesn’t have control over its own content.
There is a gap between the investment and content of business, which can be dangerous. For example, the economic crash in 2008 was partly caused by computer models that traders used to invest in products without knowing much about them.
YouTube has its own dangers, too. Some videos are repetitive and mindless junk that is designed to generate a quick laugh rather than meaningful conversation.
Big Idea #8: As technology improves, the number of jobs will decrease. The rich people who own this technology will have all the money and power in society, while poor people who don’t own it are left with nothing.
Technology has changed the way people live, work and play. For example, it used to be that humans performed manual labor. But with technology like industrialization, machines were invented to take over those tasks so humans could focus on other things. Technology freed up people from heavy labor (such as planting crops or digging foundations) so they could pursue more middle class roles (like being a secretary or travel agent).
Technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and the advances are making human labor obsolete. We may be approaching a time when robots will replace humans in nearly every area of work. Of course, this could sound great to some people; however, there’s a disturbing trend that we should pay attention to.
For the last two decades, technology has spread all over the world but hasn’t really benefited most people. In fact, wealth has been concentrated in fewer and fewer pockets. Technology specialists and financial traders with their computer models have gained a lot of money while middle class prosperity declined.
Technology is changing the world. It’s making it easier for people to do things they couldn’t before, but that change also comes with a cost. Technology could create a situation where only those who own technology are wealthy and successful while everyone else becomes impoverished. This would happen because robots would replace most jobs, so if you don’t have any money or resources, there wouldn’t be anything left for you to do in this new society.
Big Idea #9: Technology isn’t too far away. We can promote it and use it to protect our individuality.
The Internet is fairly new, so it’s still very malleable. That means we can change the way it works to promote human intelligence and individuality. The best way to do this would be to make sure that people are able to create unique and original works by protecting their intellectual property rights. One way of doing that would be to have a single copy of everybody’s work online which people pay for access. This would ensure that content producers were recognized and compensated for their work.
Another way for content creators to be compensated is through the songle, a USB stick that allows you to listen to protected music on your computer—but only when it’s plugged in. Another option is telegigging, where people pay to watch content that is available online only at particular times. A different approach would be a small tax on all internet usage.
One way to solve the problem of online piracy is by taxing every Internet user a certain amount for each bit they download. This money would then be given to those whose bits are downloaded, such as musicians and movie studios.
If someone sees your online tutorial, they have to pay for the amount of bits they used. The more bits, the higher the price.
Rather than going to internet providers and search engines, this tax would go directly to the content creators.
By making sure content creators get paid for their work, we can encourage them to continue creating high-quality, original work.
Full Summary of You Are Not A Gadget
When computers were first introduced, people speculated about what they could do. However, there was no data at the time to support or disprove those theories. Now we know that many of these predictions were wrong because of a generation’s worth of data. For example, it was thought that if you give away your creations for free on the web community will reward you with riches and fame. This has failed in the past decade as journalists and musicians have tried this method but didn’t get much from it. Many earlier concepts such as Web 2.0 and singularity movement also had a skeptical view towards human potentials believing that humans are just like machines which can be controlled by an outside source (i.e., technology). Turning away from this pessimistic attitude is one way to show optimism about human potentials and abilities.
This idea challenges the beliefs of many people in the technological community. One common belief is that machines and humans are essentially the same, but this thinking is flawed. Another view is that we should respect people for who they are instead of treating them as if they’re just like a machine.
The current design of the Internet benefits consumers. Society needs to redesign it so that producers are compensated for their work. Google should stop using its advertising model, which is bad for humanity. This shift in the use of technology will be part of a larger change in people’s relationship with technology as the world becomes more connected and less tribalistic.
Technological progress is a finite game, but human connection is an infinite game. Empathy, communication and closeness can advance without limit. Artists and engineers must collaborate to guide people away from their destructive tendencies. Individuals face a difficult challenge: deciding how to organize human culture as technology advances. Society must invent its way out of problems – including those that technology produced, such as climate change. Open debates about the role of science and the use of technology will be crucial for change to come quickly.