Es gibt zwei Zitate, die ich in den letzten 24 Monaten in all meinen Vorträgen und fast wöchentlich in Diskussionen wiederholt habe.
Sufficiantly advanced neglect is indistinguishable from malice.
– Deb Chachra
People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.
– Pedro Domingos
Das Ende der Netzneutralität in den USA ist auch das Ende des Mythos vom utopischen Internet (frei und offen). Was nun?
[…] now is a great moment to engage with some of the work in media studies, STS, and the history of technology that has trained a critical eye on the history of the Internet and the way in which it actually functions. Try to look beyond the popular press hagiographies and instead consider the works that have never bought into the popular myths that frame the Internet as an inherently benevolent force. Unfortunately, we can say many things about our present technological impasse – but we can’t say that we weren’t warned.
Link: From Net Neutrality to the Net’s New Reality
> I refuse to accept that the only good response to an imperfect technology is to abandon it. We need more specific criticisms than the ever-present feeling that „’something’s not right.“ What thing? Developing a political agenda to remake, improve, or forbid technologies requires some sort of rubric: how can I judge what I’m using? What are the deleterious impacts? How are they specific to these media and this time? Which effects are *caused by* the technologies and which are *enabled by* the technologies and which just happen to *occur through* the technologies? What are the ethics? What are the mechanics? What is the baseline?
–Alexis Madrigal, [‚Camp Grounded,‘ ‚Digital Detox,‘ and the Age of Techno-Anxiety](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-new-new-naturalism-in-the-era-of-processed-relationships/277600/)
Einer der prägensten Absätze für mich in den letzten Monaten.