128 pages
English language
Published Aug. 13, 2018 by Holt & Company, Henry.
Jaron Lanier, the world-famous Silicon Valley scientist-pioneer who first alerted us to the dangers of social media, explains why its toxic effects are at the heart of its design, and explains in ten simple arguments why liberating yourself from its hold will transform your life and the world for the better.
In Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now Jaron Lanier draws on his insider's expertise to explain precisely how social media works and why its cruel and dangerous effects are at the heart of its current business model and design. As well as offering ten simple arguments for liberating yourself from its addictive hold, his witty and urgent manifesto outlines a vision for an alternative that provides all the benefits of social media without the harm. nicer person in the process.
This book encouraged me to quit all social media ruled by big tech companies. I couldn't decide whether to remove my Twitter until I met this book, but the decision definately improved my QOL.
I read this because I was asked to write something to coincide with a re-broadcast online of a talk Lanier did about the book in 2018.
While I think Lanier does an OK job of outlining some of what's fucked about social media, this book suffers from the same delusion of Zuboff's surveillance capitalism: treating what social media does as an anomaly to capitalism, rather than a logical extension/stage of it. Lanier's pretty libertarian so it makes sense that his theory of change and his arguments for quitting social media are so "you, the reader" focused rather than collective imperatives. But much like "quitting" capitalism, quitting social media is something that requires either tremendous sacrifice or privilege to do as an individual and only really means an individual feels OK without necessarily contributing to anyone else's well-being.
In terms of readability it's not very jargon-y and relatively self-aware, but there …
I read this because I was asked to write something to coincide with a re-broadcast online of a talk Lanier did about the book in 2018.
While I think Lanier does an OK job of outlining some of what's fucked about social media, this book suffers from the same delusion of Zuboff's surveillance capitalism: treating what social media does as an anomaly to capitalism, rather than a logical extension/stage of it. Lanier's pretty libertarian so it makes sense that his theory of change and his arguments for quitting social media are so "you, the reader" focused rather than collective imperatives. But much like "quitting" capitalism, quitting social media is something that requires either tremendous sacrifice or privilege to do as an individual and only really means an individual feels OK without necessarily contributing to anyone else's well-being.
In terms of readability it's not very jargon-y and relatively self-aware, but there is definitely a low-key "I'm actually the smartest boy in the room" vibe to the entire book despite some very sweeping generalizations and mostly personal experience based arguments. I'd also second Mouse's point in their review about the weak citations (how is anyone referencing the Stanford Prison Experiment as a legitimate study?).
This was such a frustrating read because I agree with so many of the problems he identifies with social media, but I found his reasoning deeply flawed.
To the extent that this is a diatribe about how unpleasant social media is in his personal experience, I was mostly onboard, but the difference, I think, between a rant and a book is rigor.
His citations were mostly news articles and wikipedia entries, and he relies heavily on a superficial understanding of popular, flawed studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment. He makes bold, sweeping, and imprecise statements about the a number of things, particularly the nature of addiction and how addicts behave, without any backup or indication that he is speaking in any way besides entirely off the cuff.
I was disappointed as well in how stuck his reasoning is within the frame of capitalism and tech solutionism.
