Really excellent article by Andrew Orlowski in the Register today, which draws attention to the issue of who can we trust in a digital world to store our memories. Christian Lindholm, who I work with often, is quoted and I know has begun to think about this issue a lot. His debate with Andrew is fascinating, and reflects some very real concerns that I have. The article says....
Hardly any of the potential consequences of our move to digital products and services are given a moment's thought. Instead, we're encouraged to greet each new launch with enthusiasm, by a popular press which itself is as about as critical of digital products as a child is of Father Christmas. As long as the gifts keep coming, why should one question either the mechanics or the economics behind them? This blind obedience breeds politicians like Tony Blair, who has a ten-year long urge to "modernize" his party without ever fully explaining what he means. Except that whatever he proposes is good, and his opponents are Luddites.
We know from experience that most information technologies (as opposed to washing machines and antibiotics) are introduced simply to benefit their producers, and only if we're lucky are there fringe benefits for the rest of us. The good news is that we eventually reject the ones we don't want; the bad news is just like real 'revolutions', it can take many years or decades to reject them. For now, technology evangelists trust 'more technology' to supply the answers to the awkward questions.
Perfect and exactly what Distraction is about. It cannot be said often enough: we are witnessing the commercialisation of some essential elements of what it means to be human - memory and conversation. This is all of a piece with the history of man since industrialisation; domestic activities that were previously done "for free" (washing, food preparation) become opportunities for profit. Once we've accepted these moves we do not go back.
Comments