Author: Glenn
Reynolds (from Instantpundit)
Title: “An Army of Davids”
Subtitle: “How markets and technology empower ordinary
people to beat big media, big government and other goliaths”
Publication: Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006. ISBN 978-1-59555-113-0, paper, 290 pages,
indexed, has Preface, Interlude, Conclusion and ten chapters
First, let me note that I was under the impression that the
publisher’s brand is well known for Christian books. This book is definitely secular, and
certainly on the libertarian side of conservative, and certainly on the
individualistic side of faith. This is
western culture.
The basic theme is certainly well known now. Technology has revolutionized the production
and distribution of media, allowing individuals to compete with whole companies
for attention to their ideas, with little barrier to entry.
The author pays little attention to the legal framework for
the new status-quo, where service providers are largely exempted from
downstream liability exposure for what users to, by Section 230 of the 1996
Telecommunications Act (CDA-230), for libel and certain other torts, and by the
DMCA Safe Harbor for most copyright infringement. Some people want to weaken these protections,
because they think the “goliath” ISP companies have the deep pockets to protect
children or prevent piracy, but it wouldn’t work that way. It’s also noteworthy that book publishers do
not enjoy such immunity, which accounts for the (rarely enforced)
indemnification clauses that authors have to sign with book publishers, even
self-publishing companies.
Reynolds does talk about the issue of FCC regulation, and
the relationship between broadcast companies and newer podcast operators. He mentions Lawrence Lessig and the “Happy
Birthday” copyright case, as apparently having started way back in 2006 or so,
even though it was in the news last year (2013). Old legacy media companies have every reason
to resist new kinds of competition. He
is prescient about the issues that the FCC faces today given the recent appeals
court ruling “striking down” its attempt at network neutrality.
He has a cute alliteration: “Media” vs. “We-dia”. Except, one can say that the “we” is often a
collection of independent voices, not the solidarity (or shared vision) that we
usually connect to the pronoun “we”.
The “Interlude” or intermission is an essay on good
blogging. I agree, that the best blogs
present information you can’t easily find from established media.
The second half of the book argues that we approach a
“singularity” in the scope of our technology.
He goes into some esoteric areas: nanotechnology, increased longevity,
and space travel and even relocation to Mars.
The nanontechnology could be dangerous, as in the television series like
“Jake 2.0”, “Revolution” or “Intelligence”.
He mentions the theoretical possibility that a miscue could turn the
entire world into goo by a miscalculation.
(He doesn’t get into quantum computing.)
On longevity, he says that medical advances could drive actuarial life
expectancy at any age to the “escape velocity” for immortality – but that could
only benefit the young – who would have to stay healthy forever and never
retire (like the aliens in NBC’s “The Event”).
I like his idea of “horizontal” distribution and consumption
of knowledge. That’s very challenging to
politicians in some parts of the world, where knowledge is seen as a perk of social position and success in commercial, political or familial competition. For example, in Russia, Vladimir Putin thinks that he will increase the
birth rate if he can keep knowledge about gay rights away from impressionable
minors. It’s not too good for
individuals to think too much of themselves, and not provide their country a
biological future. But what if indeed
people can live forever?
Other comparisons: Rohit Barghava's "Likeonomics" (Dec. 19, 2012 here); the films "Generation Like" (PBS, TV blog Feb. 19, 2014) and "Us Now" (Movies blog, Feb. 20, 2014).