I just happened to stumble upon an Amazon page about this book, written by Jaron Lanier. As I didn’t know the guy, and the subject seemed kind of interesting, I took the time to read the related interview.

So, basically, this Jaron Lanier talks about how the internet culture, especially the web 2.0 is dehumanizing our societies by putting forward collective wisdom instead of individualism. He criticizes Wikipedia, Linux, and basically everything which, in any way whatsoever, may look like collective work.
Even though his arguments aren’t new, nor fully developed (at least in this interview, I haven’t read the book), this seems wrong on so many levels.

The guy actually states that the web users are in fact too stupid to remember that the piece of information they’re reading, whether it is the result of individual or collective work, has been written by someone, by real people. He fears that tools such as Wikipedia will inevitably erase all forms of individual opinion and belief.

This fear goes with the thought that creative people will lose their jobs, and then it will be everybody’s turn. For someone who considers himself as a contemporary thinker, this really seems like a down to earth consideration. Let’s just say we compare this with the industrial revolution; of course there were people who back then also thought that technological progress was wrong because it would rob people of their jobs. Of course these fear monger were wrong because they didn’t take into account the fact that society would evolve too, as technology would, and thus the disappearing of several work activities came with appearing new ones. The same way as I think Jaron Lanier is wrong. Well, at least he doesn’t seem to really consider this far enough in a global way.

Then he rants about how collective projects are devaluing personal achievements. Hey Jaron, the simple fact that I know who Jimmy Wales or Linus Torvalds are lets me think you’re wrong. Besides, he seems to think that everyone who participates in such projects seeks global recognition. Only someone who has probably never taken part in collective projects thinks this way. I mean, if I edit a Wikipedia article, or even if I create a new one, I don’t do this because I want to be recognized, I’m just happy to be able to contribute in such great projects, whatever my means are.

This takes us to the point which, I think, is critical to understand Lanier’s point of view. By always pointing out the fact that the individual achievement is devalued, that the notion of the individual worker disappears, and by fearing that, Lanier implicitly states that he prefers the argument of authority rather than raw facts. Let me explain this a little bit more : in his talk he points out a few creations which he presents as individual achievements which are better than what would have been possible thanks to collective creation.
Weel yeah, of course, the iPod is a great commercial success. But pointing out the flaws of Linux is just ridiculous. No one argues today about the fact that open-source software like Mozilla Firefox (and, to a lesser degree, the Linux operating system) gain more market-share everyday. Not because people are embracing the open-source philosophy, but just because these software are better than their proprietary counterparts. But Lanier seems to prefer something produced by an individual, or at least not a global open goup, as it seems more trustworthy to him, than anything produced in an open way. And what shocks me is that the trust he gives comes not from the objective quality of the product, but from the means of production, the number of people involved.

Basically, his idea revolves around the fact that he doesn’ t really seem to get information theory, or obvious reasonings such as the fact that information can be duplicated without losing its meaning.
His examples about how proprietary systems are able to produce more efficient ideas are nothing but small examples or semantic shortcuts, it doesn’t rely on any theoretical or logical reasoning. But this doesn’t surprise me, as neo-luddism and fear mongering rarely does.