In our age of individualism, we see computers as ways through which we can express our individuality. But the truth is that the computers are really good at spotting the very opposite. The computers can see how similar we are, and they then have the ability to agglomerate us together into groups that have the same behaviours.
Interpretation
This quote highlights how computers, though perceived as tools for self-expression, actually reveal our similarities and group behaviors.
Adam Curtis reflects on the paradox of individualism in the digital age, suggesting that while we might view computers and technology as platforms for showcasing our uniqueness, they are, in fact, adept at identifying patterns and similarities among people. This capability of technology prompts us to reconsider whether our digital interactions genuinely reflect individual expression or whether they socially categorize us into homogeneous groups based on shared behaviors and preferences.
In practice
During a tech conference discussion about the role of social media in shaping identities.
Ever since the economic crisis in 2008, millions of people have accepted cuts in all sorts of things - from real wages and living standards to benefits and hospital care - without any real opposition. The cuts may be right, or they may be stupid - but the astonishing thing is how no-one really challenges them.
Both individuals and societies tell themselves stories to simplify and make sense of the messy chaos of reality.
One of the guiding beliefs of our consuming age is that we are all free and independent individuals. That we can choose to do pretty much what we want, and if we can't, then it's bad. But at the same time, co-existing alongside this, there is a completely different, parallel universe where we all seem meekly to do what those in power tell us to do.
So much of the language that surrounds us - from things like economics, management theory, and the algorithms built into computer systems - appears to be objective and neutral. But in fact, it is loaded with powerful, and very debatable, political assumptions about how society should work and what human beings are really like.
Throughout the western world, new systems have risen up whose job is to constantly record and monitor the present - and then compare that to the recorded past. The aim is to discover patterns, coincidences and correlations, and from that, find ways of stopping change. Keeping things the same.
I never felt that the naming issue was all that important, but I was obviously wrong, judging by how many people felt. I tell people to call it just plain Linux and nothing more.
Measured in time of transport and communication, the whole round globe is now smaller than a small European country was a hundred years ago.
The PC is the LSD of the '90s.
None of us today know how to get computers to learn with the speed and flexibility of a child.
EMACS could not have been reached by a process of careful design, because such processes arrive only at goals which are visible at the outset, and whose desirability is established on the bottom line at the outset. Neither I nor anyone else visualized an extensible editor until I had made one, nor appreciated its value until he had experienced it. EMACS exists because I felt free to make individually useful small improvements on a path whose end was not in sight.
The Internet made fame wack and anonymity cool.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.