(The Internet of Us) [PDF DOWNLOAD] ´ Michael Patrick Lynch
Nother in terms we can both understand It is not enough to be receptive downloaders and reflective responsible believers We also need to be reasonable Reasonableness isn t a matter of being polite It has a public point Exchanging reasons matters because it is a useful way of laying out evidence of credibility It is why we often demand that people give us arguments for their views reasons that they can upload onto our shared public workspace We use these reasons for good or ill as trust tags And the converse holds as well If I want you to trust me I will find converse holds as well If I want you to trust me I will find useful to give you some publicly appreciable evidence for thinking of me as credible Lynch also makes some fascinating arguments about the danger of big data and how it strips autonomy from the individual As someone who has had than a few maddening arguments with people about why companies collecting your data is unhealthy and undemocratic I am often told that if I m not doing anything illegal who cares if someone is collecting information about what I eat or buy Lynch lays out the case for exactly why this is In effect while we think that trading some privacy for convenience does minimal harm it is in cuts at the very essence of who we are as free thinking beings Lynch explains how this affects us in ways that we are often unaware of Totally autonomous decisions are no doubt extremely rare indeed philosophers have long uestioned whether they are possible at all But it is clear that we value autonomy of decision even if we can only approximate the ideal That s because autonomy of decision is part of what it is to be a fully mature person And that I believe tells us something about why privacy matters It matters at least in part because information privacy is linked to autonomy and thereby an important feature of personhood itself There are two ways to infringe on a person s autonomy of decision The most obvious way is by overruling the decision either by direct compulsion I point a gun at your head or by indirectly controlling your values and commitments I brainwash you A subtler way of infringing on your autonomy is to undermine it Suppose a doctor makes the decision to give you a drug without asking your permission Nobody has made you decide to do something But your autonomy has been undermined nonetheless and for an obvious reason your decision has been foreclosed You are not in a position to make the decision It has been made for you But privacy invasions generally don t harm autonomy in this way They don t overrule privacy They undermine it Suppose to take a old fashioned example that I break into your house and read your diary over and over again every day Suppose further that I make copies for my friends Even if again you never learn of this I am harming you in a new way by undermining your capacity to control your private information Whether you know it or not that capacity is diminished You may think you have the autonomy to decide whether to share your diary or not But in fact you are not in a position to make the decision I ve made that decision for you Your autonomy of decision has been undermined In short there is a short leap from being willing to trust in large companies to intrude in and manipulate every moment of your day to being receptive to a government doing the same A government that sees its citizens private information as subject to tracking and collection has implicitly adopted a stance toward those citizens inconsistent with the respect due to their inherent dignity as autonomous individuals It has begun to see them not as persons but as objects to be understood and controlled That attitude is inconsistent with the demands of democracy itself In this sense defending your autonomy is the bedrock of democratic societies When that erodes the democracy erodes with it When google facebook or others argue that privacy in essence your autonomy as a human being with a right "to withhold information about yourself is not a legitimate concern in a networked "withhold information about yourself is not a legitimate concern in a networked it is perhaps instructive to remember Lynch s argument These reflections also give the lie to the idea that privacy of information is a modern creation It is not The source of privacy s value is deeper lying at the intersection of autonomy and personhood itself That is why privacy still matters We are wise not to forget that even as we trade it away Knowledge may be transparent but power rarely Gadgets on our wrists in our pockets and on our laps will be a net gain for humanity Along the way Lynch uses a philosopher's lens to examine some of the most urgent issues facing digital life today including how social media is revolutionizing the way we think about privacy; why a greater reliance on Wikipedia and Google doesn't necessarily make knowledge democratic; and the perils of using big data alone to predict cultural trendsPromising to modernize our understanding of what it means to be human in the digital age The Internet of Us builds on previous works by Nicholas Carr James Gleick and Jaron Lanier to give us a necessary guide on how to navigate the philosophical uagmire that is the Information Age.
characters ç PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ¸ Michael Patrick LynchFor those of us who didn "t come of age the Internet there is a persistent nagging uestion Has the Internet "come of age with the Internet there is persistent nagging uestion Has the Internet changed us as a people and if the answer is yes is that change good bad or some combination of the two Because I consider these perhaps the most relevant uestions of our time I generally liked and admired Michael Patrick Lynch s The Internet of Us Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data even if it wasn t uite what I expected
The Internet of Us is technically a philosophy book ie Lynch a philosophyInternet of Us is technically a philosophy book ie Lynch a philosophy posits a series of premises a This is a lot like Too Big to Know Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren t the Facts Experts Are Everywhere and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room except from a much philosophical point of view In fact I wouldn t recommend this for anyone who doesn t have at least a passing familiarity with philosophy Mine is only as an amateur and I had to stretch to understand Lynch s references and some of the terminology and idea shorthandOther than that it s very similar to the other book I mentioned arguing that in the era of the Internet we know facts but we understand relationships and how things work less than previous generations particularly when it comes to real life experience There is also discussion of privacy and autonomy that I could not get very excited about although Lynch s points are worth ponderingAs with the other book I don t find Lynch convincing either I don t think it s true that we know and understand less Okay yes maybe the ratio of what we know to what we understand has shifted in favor of knowing but I would argue that what we understand has not shrunk in absolute terms It s probably grown too ust not as much And nowhere does Lynch compare the rate of growth in both ways In any case I find it strange to complain that we sacrifice understanding to knowing For one thing knowing facts is necessary to understanding so there s a dependency there And to use Lynch s example of how we Secrets of the TEAS® Exam Study Guide just use massive amounts of data to recognize realities maybe we understand less because we see that what we used to understand isn t actually as true as we thought it wasThe case I can think of where Lynch might be right in terms of how the Internet may cause us to know and understand less is where we spend all our spare time experiencing the news discussions and cat videos that the Internet has to offer without taking time to think about what we ve encountered I ve reached this point before and maybe others keep going where I stopped regularly checking some of those sites that were eating my time goodbye cnncom and howstuffworkscom The funny thing is Lynch never uses that example Also it was certainly very possible before the Internet I think this is the core complaint about television and I have to be careful to take time to think about what I read instead of merely plowing through it These book reviews are part of how I make sure to think about what I readAs far as understanding less about the real world I think Lynch has it wrong two ways people don t understand less about the real world because of the Internet People may be spending time online and less doing other stuff but they still have hobbies which don t directly involve the Internet I think the existence of SO MANY specialized online communities for any kind of activity you can imagine comics windsurfing the DIY movement and home science experiments and even that you can t bronies and we ll leave it at that shows people are doing stuff and understanding plenty The other way Lynch has it wrong is that he looks down on the Internet as a fake world And yet a LOT that goes on there ISust as real now Keeping up with my cousins posts on Facebook doesn t weaken my relationship with them for example I wouldn t have kept up with them any better otherwise and knowing some of what they ve been up to helps me start conversations with them when we do get togetherLynch s last core argument and almost everyone else s about why the Internet is bad is because so many people don t listen to reason online and they re able to form support groups of like minded others Although people s opinions may becoming extreme and entrenched because of the Internet I think it was going on almost as much before It ust wasn t as visible especially if you didn t get outside your own social groups once in a while Lynch at lea. We used to say seeing is believing; now googling is believing With 247 access to nearly all of the world's information at our fingertips we no longer trek to the library or the encyclopedia shelf in search of answers We ust open our browsers type in a few keywords and wait for the information to come to us Indeed the Internet has revolutionized the way we learn and know as well as how we interact with each other And yet this explosion of technological innovation has also produced a curious paradox even as we know we seem to understand lessWhile a wealth of literature has been devoted to life with the Internet the deep philosophical implications of this seismic shift have not been properly explored until now. St recognizes this could be the case This particular complaint may be disappointment that the Internet has not caused man to reach his potential for reason the way everyone hoped The ease of Google searches leads to our subtly devaluing other ways of knowing Like our love affair with the automobile leads us to overvalue one way to get where we are going We lose sight that we can reach our destinations in other ways which have significant value on their own This is a great book It is pop philosophy that anyone can read and appreciate It has enough call backs to major philosophy that it is appreciate It has enough call backs to major philosophy that it is great introductory book A lot of the book is tied to the idea of having nueromedia a thing that doesn t exist yet and what that would mean for how we think Apart from the rest of the book my favorite point was that crowd sourcing is a form of outsourcing This is definitely worth a read it is uick and thought provoking without being cumbersome 12More about epistemology than technology per se Rather politically correct but par for the course for mainstream academic lite books Some interesting remarks on epistemology but if you re interested in that better to pick up Epistemology A Beginner s Guide which is much better than the Very Short Introduction entry of the same For the technology read Data and Goliath by Schneier Other people have said everything in this book before and they have said it better The analysis is incredibly s Awesome book The treatment of the issues was a little rudimentary than what I hoped though the book is aimed at a general readership rather than information professionals but I appreciated the philosophical bent There s a bit of the usual technological fearmongering but not enough to make it tiresome or uninteresting Networked computers aren t implanted in our brains yet but they might as well be We have come to depend on them so much that we have offloaded many cognitive functions to computers When we want to know something or argue a point we google it Our computers have become our arbiters of fact This could have worrisome implications Because
control over our networked interfaces could become control of a lot This was true in the days of coups in theover our networked interfaces could become control of a lot This was true in the days of coups in the war the first thing to be seized was the broadcast station and the telephone network but now the levers of information reach much deeply into our lives than almighty broadcast ever did Ominous Of the societal issues I struggle with our seeming dependence on the internet and social media are usually at the forefront of my thoughts As I walk through the crowded station on my way to work every morning dodging people walking with their heads down in their phones or wondering as I occasionally look over the shoulder of someone staring intently at their phone what is so enrapturing spoiler alert it is often than not Pokemon Go or pictures of themselves it is something that is difficult to avoid thinking about Michael Patrick Lynch s The Internet of Us however touches less on internet addiction but rather how we interact with the technologies that are seemingly an inseparable part of our lives In particular he examines the influence of big data corporations such as google and how they have profoundly changed what we consider knowledge In a world where access to knowledge is literally at our fingertips at a moment s notice Lynch uestions the increasingly entrenched idea that this is actually knowledge at all Citing philosophers from Locke to Plato Lynch makes the argument for knowledge being than simply accepting that an answer from a source we assume to be reliable such as wikipedia or our social group We assume this must be correct because the former and the latter are presumably large groups that have in effect crowdsourced a problem and arrived at a solution Lynch presents the argument however that our groups via a shared experience tend to be biased toward answers that reflect that experience "While They May In "they may in arrive at the correct answer if it is not an answer you have arrived at through asking uestions reflection and experience it is not knowledge in the true sense To not be simply receptive to information without asking why is crucial for establishing the legitimacy of facts Or as Lynch elouently writes In order to solve the information coordination problem we can t Conjure In African American Society just live up to our own standards We need to be willing to explain ourselves to one Demonstrating that knowledge based on reason plays an essential role in society and that there is much to “knowing” thanust acuiring information leading philosopher Michael Patrick Lynch shows how our digital way of life makes us overvalue some ways of processing information over others and thus risks distorting what it means to be humanWith far reaching implications Lynch's argument charts a path from Plato's cave to Shannon's mathematical theory of information to Google Glass illustrating that technology itself isn't the problem nor is it the solution Instead it will be the way in which we adapt our minds to these new tools that will ultimately decide whether or not the Internet of Things all those. .