Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Technology

Rating:
Summary: Examines the history and nature of digital networks
Review: How can a newly networked social structure lead to changes in social, economic and political structures which take into account past non-networked knowledge? In Prometheus Wired Barney examines the history and nature of digital networks with an eye to exploring modern issues of privacy, telecommuting, and economics.

Rating:
Summary: He's wrong, but he's wonderful
Review: Prometheus Wired is so well researched and written, and its thesis so well argued, that it caused me seriously to review my own feelings about technology and its relationships to democracy. Dr. Barney takes to task folks who, like me, believe that technology is fundamentally ungovernable. In the end, I was not persuaded to change my own views, but I was much enlightened by his explication of arguments against my own position, and that earns my greatest respect and thanks.

As one unschooled in philosophy, I found myself initially chafing at the philosophical groundlaying of chapter one, though by the end of the book one understands the necessity of it. For the opposite reason, as a techie from way back I chafed also at the computing/networking primer that constitutes chapters 2 and 3, but I must tell you that the primer (1) is expertly written and (2) is also essential background for the rest of the book, so don't skip it unless you are already an expert yourself. In any case, don't skip the part of chapter 3 dealing with networks as control utilities, which is where he really starts to weave the philosophy and technology together.

The culmination of the weaving process - the "whole cloth" of his thesis was (to me) represented in chapter 6, the penultimate chapter. And it was in this chapter that he really had me re-examining my own knowledge and beliefs. But in the end, while I very much respect his arguments and his positions on the issues, in general I was not persuaded that technology is tamable, or that society is necessarily worse off for it, or that the un-effing of the ineffable would ruin our very Being (as he seems to argue.)

I base my own views partly on my own study of the accelerating, exponential change in technologies and in a belief that it's "turtles all the way down" - that one mystery revealed will only present us with two more, and that we're in no danger of losing our Being through technology's machinations (pun intended!) Rather, in my own research I see reason to hope (thanks, Prometheus!) that through technology we will arrive at an enhanced stage of Being.

Being one myself, I confess to feeling a bit miffed with his assertion (on p. 250) that "those who promote the belief that digital networks are technically immune to legal authority of any kind express a normative preference rather than a fact." I like to think I am expressing a belief premised on the facts of technology - especially the accelerating change in technology, and not at all a normative preference. And I most strongly - but respectfully - disagree with his statement (also p. 250) that "the operative question is not whether network-mediated activity CAN be subject to the limitations of laws and rules, but rather whether it SHOULD be and, if so, by whom." It is true his statement is based upon strong argument presented earlier in the chapter, but if (like me) one disagrees with those arguments, then the statement seems very wrong.

In the spirit of his own call for more thought and deliberation on the subject, I would urge Dr. Barney (and others) to consider the following questions: CAN the net be governed, and if so, HOW; and if NOT, what is the prognosis for society and based on that prognosis what, if anything, must we do?

I would also urge everyone interested in the topic enough to have read my review to this point, to read Dr. Barney's book. It is an excellent starting point for answering the question as I have just posed it.