Neither good nor bad

"We offer two basic morals. The first is that information technology is inherently neither good nor bad—it can be used for good or ill, to free us or to shackle us. Second, new technology brings social change, and change comes with both risks and opportunities. All of us, and all of our public agencies and private institutions, have a say in whether technology will be used for good or ill and whether we will fall prey to its risks or prosper from the opportunities it creates."
from Blown to Bits by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis

I completely agree with this sentiment, and I think it sums up what we've talked about here in HONR229F. A lot of our class discussions revolve around whether new technologies invade our privacy and provide information overload, or make our lives better and simply replace already-existing forms of communication. It's tempting to assign qualities of "good" or "bad" to the internet, as any kind of revolution topples the old forms in favor of the new. But I think it's a temptation we should avoid, because regardless of what we think of them, new technologies inevitably overtake the old. This is the competitive principle we've built our society on -- if someone has an idea for something better than what exists, we should embrace it and allow that idea to grow. Trying to assess the "opportunities" themselves is wrong, not to mention impossible.

I also believe we are collectively responsible for the use of these technologies. There's a delicate balance between how a tool is used, and how its construction demands it be used, but I think our tendency is to underestimate our power in these matters. Whether Second Life, for example, becomes a learning community or a pornographic playground is ultimately up to us. Now if only we could all agree...