> He could just have easily picked out a narrative that highlighted all the criticisms I've made of Silicon Valley "solutionism" (his current bete noir). If he'd really done his research, he would have found Steve Talbott's book The Future Does Not Compute, which I published all the way back in 1995 in a first attempt to get people thinking about the ambiguous gifts that technology brings us. He could have also discovered my distaste for Libertarian fairy dust, my warnings about loss of freedom in the cloud era (which I started making back in 1999, before they became fashionable), or my arguments for the moral basis of both corporate and government decision making.
By the way, how pathetic is it that only 18 hours after this item was posted to HN, it's already off the front page of the site, and the conversation here is nearly dead? That's virtually guaranteeing that most of the comments will be made by people who haven't read the article.
Comments
Tim's short rebuttal from over on Google+ is worth repeating (https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/Q8EqCQJstBE):
> He could just have easily picked out a narrative that highlighted all the criticisms I've made of Silicon Valley "solutionism" (his current bete noir). If he'd really done his research, he would have found Steve Talbott's book The Future Does Not Compute, which I published all the way back in 1995 in a first attempt to get people thinking about the ambiguous gifts that technology brings us. He could have also discovered my distaste for Libertarian fairy dust, my warnings about loss of freedom in the cloud era (which I started making back in 1999, before they became fashionable), or my arguments for the moral basis of both corporate and government decision making.
By the way, how pathetic is it that only 18 hours after this item was posted to HN, it's already off the front page of the site, and the conversation here is nearly dead? That's virtually guaranteeing that most of the comments will be made by people who haven't read the article.