Zitat des Tages von Jaron Lanier:
Facebook says, 'Privacy is theft,' because they're selling your lack of privacy to the advertisers who might show up one day.
Advertisers and marketers should be looking to bring new experiences to different parts of the brain. It's a more profound idea than just dropping a billboard into a video game.
An intelligent person feels guilty for downloading music without paying the musician, but they use this free-open-culture ideology to cover it.
After my mother's death, I had such difficulty relating to people.
Style used to be an interaction between the human soul and tools that were limiting. In the digital era, it will have to come from the soul alone.
Mobs and dictators were made for each other, and when mobs appear, dictators will soon flourish.
What does it mean to not be alone? I've approached that question through music, technology, writing and other means.
I view advertising as being this romanticizing element that helps us appreciate, understand and enjoy how remarkable it is that we've been able to do so much, and learn so much. I view it as really vital, even though sometimes it can be really annoying.
Google's thing is not advertising because it's not a romanticizing operation. It doesn't involve expression. It's a link. What they're doing is selling access.
If you're old enough to have a job and to have a life, you use Facebook exactly as advertised, you look up old friends.
The interesting thing about advertising is that the things that annoy us sometimes about it are really human. It's us looking at ourselves - and like all human endeavors it's imperfect.
Human beings either function as individuals or as members of a pack. There's a switch inside us, deep in our spirit, that you can turn one way or the other. It's almost always the case that our worst behaviour comes out when we're switched to the mob setting. The problem with a lot of software designs is that they switch us to that setting.
It is impossible to work in information technology without also engaging in social engineering.
I think complexity is mostly sort of crummy stuff that is there because it's too expensive to change the interface.
Advertising is the edge of what people know how to do and of human experience and it explains the latest ways progress has changed us to ourselves.
I'd much rather see a world where, when you make some quirky comment on a blog or news story or you upload a video clip, instead of just a moment of fame for your pseudonym, you'll get 50 bucks. The first time that happens, you'll realise that you're a full-class citizen. You have the potential to make money from the system.
Musicians and journalists are the canaries in the coalmine, but, eventually, as computers get more and more powerful, it will kill off all middle-class professions.
Advertisers are not thinking radically enough - they look for technology to lead instead of trying the neuroscience approach and thinking about what parts of the brain haven't been activated before. These new experiences bring new capabilities to the brain.
I'm astonished at how readily a great many people I know, young people, have accepted a reduced economic prospect and limited freedoms in any substantial sense, and basically traded them for being able to screw around online.
I do real paintings, you know. I'm a little messy in the studio, so I'm a bit of a danger. But I just adore it.
Anonymous blog comments, vapid video pranks and lightweight mash-ups may seem trivial and harmless, but as a whole, this widespread practice of fragmentary, impersonal communication has demeaned personal interaction.
When you have a global mush, people lose their identity, they become pseudonyms, they have no investment and no consequence in what they do.
Every time we give a musician the advice to give away the music and sell the T-shirt, we're saying, 'Don't make your living in this more elevated way. Instead, reverse this social progress, and choose a more physical way to make a living.' We're sending them to peasanthood, very much like the Maoists have.
The wisdom of crowds works when the crowd is choosing the price of an ox, when there's a single numeric average. But if it's a design or something that matters, the decision is made by committee, and that's crap. You want people and groups who are able to think thoughts before they share.
A remarkable thing about the Silicon Valley culture is that its status structure is so based on technical accomplishment and prowess.
Technologists provide tools that can improve people's lives. But I want to be clear that I don't think technology by itself improves people's lives, since often I'm criticized for being too pro-technology. Unless there's commensurate ethical and moral improvements to go along with it, it's for naught.
