Who Owns the Future?
| Company type | Book |
|---|---|
| Industry | Publishing |
| Founded | 2013 |
| Founder | Jaron Lanier |
| Products | Non-fiction book |
| Owner | Simon & Schuster |
Who Owns the Future? is a non-fiction work authored by Jaron Lanier and released by Simon & Schuster in 2013. The publication garnered widespread critical praise, earning the 2014 Goldsmith Book Prize, the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, as well as leading accolades at the San Francisco Book Festival.
Content
Lanier contends that the economic influence of the middle class is diminishing because online corporations exploit personal information without providing remuneration. He designates these entities as "Siren Servers," which collect vast amounts of user data at negligible expense, centralizing wealth among those who operate the data centers. For instance, Google’s translation tool utilizes translations contributed by users without compensating them, while benefiting from increased advertising profits. Lanier advocates for an internet framework inspired by Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu, incorporating bidirectional links that acknowledge original creators through a system of micropayments.
Structure
The book is divided into nine sections plus a concluding chapter, each concluding with thematic interludes—brief fictional narratives or contemplations intended to emphasize core ideas.
Parts
- First Round
- The Cybernetic Tempest
- How This Century Might Unfold, from Two Points of View
- Markets, Markets, Energy Landscapes, and Narcissism
- Contest to Be Most Meta
- Democracy
- Ted Nelson
- The Dirty Pictures (or, Nuts and Bolts: What a Humanistic Alternative Might Be Like)
- Transition
- Conclusion
Reception
Joe Nocera of the New York Times described it as "the most important book I read in 2013." Janet Maslin lauded Lanier as "the father of virtual reality" and likened his cultural significance to that of Michael Jackson. Hiawatha Bray from the Boston Globe emphasized Lanier’s suggestion that companies such as Google and Amazon should compensate individuals for their data, a move that could also improve privacy by making surveillance more expensive.
Peter Lawler interpreted Lanier’s outlook as hopeful for a more ethical and participatory technological future. Laurence Scott writing for The Guardian acknowledged Lanier's optimism rooted in Silicon Valley culture but praised his compelling vision of a democratic information economy. The Economist recognized Lanier’s bold concept of rewarding data producers with nanopayments, while noting the practical challenges involved.
The Independent valued Lanier's bourgeois perspective amid evolving production dynamics. The Columbia Journalism Review commended his analysis of Silicon Valley’s intertwining of technological optimism and self-fulfillment narratives. The Daily Telegraph found his arguments convincing but remained cautiously doubtful about their feasibility.
The Los Angeles Times pointed out some ambiguity in Lanier’s proposed payment methods but acknowledged his skill in making complex ideas accessible to both experts and lay audiences. Meanwhile, the Washington Post critiqued the absence of a thorough discussion on how automation should influence societal restructuring despite the micropayment model.
Evan Hughes from The New Republic provided a nuanced perspective, recognizing Lanier’s accurate critique of digital economy challenges and applauding his readiness to suggest daring solutions despite certain imperfections.
See also
- Content farm
- Crowdsourcing
- Knowledge worker
- Open-source intelligence
- Post-scarcity
- Sharing economy
- Surveillance capitalism
- Social networking websites (category)
- User-generated content
- The Wealth of Networks