Customer Reviews

Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

I borrowed (thankfully, did not buy) this book expecting to read a fair discussion of the political beliefs of all areas of high-tech. Unfortunately, within the first few pages it became clear that Borsoook has decided to tar everyone with even a slight interest in high technology issues with a very large brush.

The strange thing is that, from what she reveals of her own political beliefs, I believe in most of the same things as her. However, I was rather surprised to learn that ALL tech people are (in no particular order):

- anti-government anarchists

- loners

- rich and grasping

- sexually frustrated

- uninterested in art or music beyond the purely mathemetical

- incapable of understanding human issues.

Oh, and of course:

- libertarians.

In particular, I was extremely disappointed to see only two _very_ short references to the open-source / hacker culture, whose teamwork and altruism have donated a great deal of outstanding work to the public without expecting financial reward for their efforts.

If you have already concluded that we are robotic nerds who always write in bulleted lists (oops) then you might as well buy this book. If you don't know the meaning of words like 'dysphoric' and 'dilettante', then you might be well-advised to buy a large dictionary too. Just don't expect 'Cyberselfish' to give more than one side of the story.

Most of the criticism of this book seems to come from those who disagree with its argument, or those who didn't like the idea of reading a polemic. Actually, I was at the outset sympathetic to the argument and enjoy a good rant; however I couldn't bear this book: the writing is appalling.

It is abolutely stuffed full of "knowing" references and pop-culture slang. Sometimes this creates the impression of trying to hide a weak argument in clever language. Other times it's just plain irritating.

Let me give you an example, based on opening the book on a random page. Here we go, pages 44-45:

- "I would affirm that yes indeedybob there are values the market can't compute or dictate..."

- "That crew [Marx and "his pal" Engels] was far better at how capitalism works than at coming up with policy-wonk recommendations."

- "Humanities geeks are more likely to be squishy-liberals and snail-darters."

- "Technolibertarians wouldn't really know how to grok a less quantitative/algorithmic weltanschauung. It's C.P.Snow's two cultures antipathy taking a form he hadn't quite imagined."

Anyway, after gritting my teeth through a hundred pages of this I gave up. The writing was just getting in the way of the argument. Maybe the person I should be blaming is her editor.

Oh, and her sub-editor too: it's full of typos. I know that's a pedantic thing to say, but how often do you read a good book with terrible spelling?

Ms. Borsook's book starts out well, makes some good points, including the basic idea that the prevalent libertarianism associated with high tech culture is selfish, misguided yet a growing force in America today. Her insights from attendance at various high-tech events were particularly interesting. However, I have given up in the middle of her chapter about the magazine "Wired", which is based on her personal experiences and oh Lord does she grind the ax to the nub.

After a while her writing style also gets extremely tedious: paragraph-length sentences full of jargon-laden descriptives, high tech turns of phrase and dependent clauses. Maybe you need to write that way for magazines to get as much information as you can into a short space, but in a book it really starts to wear.

Let me begin by disclosing that I work in a technology-heavy industry and have libertarian political sympathies. And with that confession out of the way, I can say that I found 'Cyberselfish' an amusing book at times, if for no other reason than Ms. Borsook's ability to get under my skin. She's an excellent needler.

But her book, writing style aside, is pretty awful. I can almost forgive her many insinuations and half-truths since her title does promise "a critical romp"--and my Webster's denotes romp as "boisterous play" and "as easy, winning pace." But it's not enough. A breezy, play-loose-with-the-facts style is ok for suitable subject matter (I suppose ex-Wired writers don't bother with trifles like footnotes), but taking on an entire industry and political philosophy without suitable armor goes a bit far.

To name a few areas where facts might have been helpful: Borsook treats libertarian political philosophy and debates about the proper role of government in a free market society with-to put it bluntly-more prejudice than rigor. Referring to works by Ayn Rand (or even Robert Heinlein) as celebrating a "cult of the individual" is tar on a pretty thick brush (though both late authors might be flattered); a close reading of either reveals a celebration of individual *creativity*, not some Darwinian, I-got-mine-screw-you ethos. In short, both saw an individualistic spirit applied to one's work and play (with which the author herself might identify!) as the engine driving a free society; how this idea fell out socially and politically is another matter. This confusion has long been a staple for the authors' enemies.

But a sneer or two at cultural influence pales compared to the author's misreading of libertarian politics. Carefully reasoned arguments for limited government (basically protecting us from enemies without and within, and not bothering with, say, regulating children's television viewing) have been around for decades, often drawing on much older influences; indeed, libertarians often seem to be the only citizens asking what government is *for,* not just taking the current mess for granted. Libertarians can even be (amazingly!) self-critical-Rand devotee Peter Schwartz once wrote a scathing article entitled 'Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,' ripping followers for being nothing more than anarchists and 'anti-everything.'

But Ms. Borsook's ideas about government apparently aren't quite that inquisitive. Rather, she sees only goodness spawned by our government's largess (like the Internet!), taking to task those whiny cyber-elitists who don't realize that this reviled institution supplies all that electricity, infrastructure, and police protection that makes their businesses possible. Well, sure, but without attacking that point philosophically (and leaving aside the endless list of tasks the government has done, shall we say, less-than well), I'd remind the author that perhaps the entrepreneur's lack of gratitude works both ways. Was ARPANET set up, for example, to foster what for-profit businesses did with it later? No? Without some cause-and-effect why should those profiting from the current state of affairs show gratitude for what is-at best-a happy accident? Would the builders of government-built roads have expected gratitude from Henry Ford? ("Without us, where would he be?")

There are too many other factual laughers to recount here, but a few will suffice. Bionomics, a fairly dicey and easy subject to attack, also doesn't fly apparently because "you can't put a market value on basic research, fine art, and clean water"; again, wonderful things provided-apparently, exclusively--by the bogeyman government. Try asking Microsoft about research, Sotheby's about art, and perhaps Arrowhead about water; last time I checked, market value was approaching several billion.

Since I started this review with a confession, I'll finish with a retort. Apparently, according to the author, due to my libertarian sensibilities I'm a loveless, childless, stingy, anti-environmental, politically naïve whiner. I would hope that since I'm none of the above I would not only prove her "case" wrong, but provide a grounds for optimism. Sadly, I suspect not.

Now, I'll admit to leaning libertarian myself, but I really really did try to give this book a chance. But at the end of the day, the book is an attack without an argument, and with very little analysis. The book is premised on the idea that practically everyone in the tech industry is a "libertarian"... which, in the author's caricature, means some sort of selfishness-celebrating Ayn Randroid. As far as I can tell, she's not very familiar with libertarian ideas (against which there are various good arguments to be made... but she apparently didn't care to learn enough about the ideas to make them) and mostly resorts to amateur psychologizing, and insinuating that libertarians are just nasty people. What facts do make it into the book aren't even very carefully checked (she says something about the Cato Institute having been around since the 60s...) So I guess if you already dislike libertarians and want something to chuckle along to, this is OK. If you want a serious critical examination of (and attack on) libertarian ideas, though, try Will Kymlicka's "Contemporary Political Philosophy" which has a chapter on them. This little tome is about as reasonable as a Rush Limbaugh screed. Or maybe those Jack Chick religious pamphlets which show liberals scheming about how to destroy Christianity through satanic rock music.

After reading this, I now have deep respect for the journalistic honesty of it-could-be tabloids such as the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. They, at least, if they claim that a man was seen kidnapped by Aliens dressed as Elvis at the McDonald's at 42nd street, will carefully verify that there is a McDonald's at that address. The author, a true child of the philosophy of fact free discourse and relative social knowledges, clearly believes that such objectivity is overwrought.

As co-ordinator for the Libertarian International Organization, no Libertarian figure of any significance was contacted, much less interviewed in depth, for this book. It seems many of the Cyber-Libertarians she cites are actually registered Republicans Democrats, or oppose Libertarianism.

This is a typical Establishment big-lie piece by a hack so confident in her readers she did not on net do any meaningful research. Perhaps she will soon give us an expose on the Methodist Church by interviewing the Taliban.

This book is sure to be placed on State University reading lists everywhere for unsuspecting political science and cultural studies majors.

If you believe the early days of Wired were innovative and spoke to and about high tech culture you might enjoy the author's rants. Unfortunately old Wired was so bad spending 1/4 of the book using her presence there as proof of her credibility fails.

The book is interesting, full of generalizations, and somewhat dishonest. But, between the sloppy arguments there are some valid points that few people are talking about.

Although I'm in sympathy with Ms. Borsook's general thesis two BIG flaws served to constantly distract and detract from a full five stars. Her endless thrashing throughout of the "libertarian" horse highlights her fundamental lack of understanding of this political philosophy. A broad brush is used where light touches are cried for. As for her days at Wired I find it interesting that she holds up Wired as the originator (as she did again today on KPFA-FM 94.1 Berkeley during an interview) of that style of magazine publishing when MONDO did it first and with way more chops in every area. Since I've worked in the Valley since 1982 I clearly remember discussing with friends at the time (early 90's) that Wired looked and felt like a corporate ripoff of MONDO. Which it was...

I found this book annoying and narrow minded. The author seems to have decided upon her thesis and then thrown in whatever facts support it, while ignoring those that don't. Her knowledge of high tech is second hand and limited to the area within a few freeway exits of Palo Alto.

It's full of whoppers like "Most technologists would assert that CP/M or DR/DOS were better operaring systems than the market-triumphant MS-DOS...". Oh really? When the IBM PC came out, people couldn't get off their S-100 bus CP/M machines fast enough. Boy if you think DOS was clunky, try copying a file on CP/M.

As a former Microsoft employee, I was reading along waiting to see how she would explain Bill Gates' charitable activities. He's given a sizeable part of his fortune to his charitable trust. Microsoft and Gates personally have always been big advocates of the United Way. I believe both his parents chaired the local chapter at one time. So what does she say about that? Nada. Not one word.

Don't waste your money on this.

In this absorbing and thoughtful book, the author takes on the new "Bobos in the promised land" of high technology, and finds their overall grasp on reality and worldview selfish, superficial, and self-absorbed. As is becoming more and more common for those living super-affluent lifestyles in our society, well-educated and technologically educated people are now enjoy lifestyles so pampered and isolated from the basic realities of life on Planet Earth that they actually believe their own unusual and privileged experiences to be the experience of everyone else walking the globe. This extremely wrong-headed notion leads to a string of dangerously myopic ideas of what the world is like and how to view others not so fortunate...Unfortunately, they have confused craven marketing and propagandizing with truth, and this is always a dangerous enterprise to engage in....This is an interesting, provocative, and worthwhile book. I highly recommend it.