What do you think?
Rate this book
Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn't Fear Facebook and the Future
From award-winning journalist and author of the “methodical, earnest, and insightful” ( The Guardian ) Panic Attack , an examination of recent kneejerk calls to regulate Big Tech from both sides of the aisle.
Not so long ago, we embraced social media as a life-changing opportunity to connect with friends and family all across the globe. Today, the pendulum of public opinion is swinging in the opposite direction as Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and similar sites are being accused of corrupting our democracy, spreading disinformation, and fanning the flames of hatred. We once marveled at the revolutionary convenience of ordering items online and having them show up on our doorsteps overnight. Now we fret about Amazon outsourcing our jobs overseas or building robots to do them for us.
With insightful analysis and in-depth research, Robby Soave offers “a refreshing dose of sanity and common sense about big tech” (David French, author of Divided We Fall ) and explores some of the biggest issues animating both the right and the bias, censorship, disinformation, privacy, screen addiction, crime, and more. Far from polemical, Tech Panic is grounded in interviews with insiders at companies like Facebook and Twitter, as well as expert analysis by both tech boosters and skeptics—from Mark Zuckerberg to Josh Hawley. You will learn not just about the consequences of Big Tech, but also the consequences of altering the ecosystem that allowed tech to get big. Offering a fresh and crucial perspective on one of the biggest influences of the 21st century, Soave seeks to stand athwart history and yell, Wait, are we sure we really want to do this?
Not so long ago, we embraced social media as a life-changing opportunity to connect with friends and family all across the globe. Today, the pendulum of public opinion is swinging in the opposite direction as Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and similar sites are being accused of corrupting our democracy, spreading disinformation, and fanning the flames of hatred. We once marveled at the revolutionary convenience of ordering items online and having them show up on our doorsteps overnight. Now we fret about Amazon outsourcing our jobs overseas or building robots to do them for us.
With insightful analysis and in-depth research, Robby Soave offers “a refreshing dose of sanity and common sense about big tech” (David French, author of Divided We Fall ) and explores some of the biggest issues animating both the right and the bias, censorship, disinformation, privacy, screen addiction, crime, and more. Far from polemical, Tech Panic is grounded in interviews with insiders at companies like Facebook and Twitter, as well as expert analysis by both tech boosters and skeptics—from Mark Zuckerberg to Josh Hawley. You will learn not just about the consequences of Big Tech, but also the consequences of altering the ecosystem that allowed tech to get big. Offering a fresh and crucial perspective on one of the biggest influences of the 21st century, Soave seeks to stand athwart history and yell, Wait, are we sure we really want to do this?
244 pages, Hardcover
Published September 28, 2021
About the author
Robby Soave
3 books25 followersRobby Soave is an associate editor at Reason magazine. He enjoys writing about culture, politics, education policy, criminal justice reform, television, and video games. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Report, The Orange County Register, and The Detroit News. In 2016, Forbes named him to the "30 Under 30" list in the category of law and policy. In 2017, he became a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies. He also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Soave won widespread recognition for setting the record straight in two infamous cases of media malpractice: the 2014 Rolling Stone hoax article about sexual assault at the University of Virginia, and the 2019 incident involving Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial. He won a Southern California Journalism Award for discrediting the former; his writings about the latter prompted several mainstream media outlets to apologize for having wrongly smeared the boys.
A Detroit native, and a graduate of the University of Michigan, Soave now lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Carrie, and their two Yorkies, Caesar and Oliver.
Soave won widespread recognition for setting the record straight in two infamous cases of media malpractice: the 2014 Rolling Stone hoax article about sexual assault at the University of Virginia, and the 2019 incident involving Catholic high school students at the Lincoln Memorial. He won a Southern California Journalism Award for discrediting the former; his writings about the latter prompted several mainstream media outlets to apologize for having wrongly smeared the boys.
A Detroit native, and a graduate of the University of Michigan, Soave now lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Carrie, and their two Yorkies, Caesar and Oliver.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 4, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Книга станет отличным выбором для тех читателей, которые видят в социальных сетях и/или Интернете (как таковом) угрозу для общества. К примеру, книга отвечает на вопрос, почему социальные сети внесли минимальный (если вообще какой-то) вклад в победу Дональда Трампа на выборах президента в 2016 году. Так как меня интересовала именно эта тема, то все остальные главы оставили менее сильное впечатление. По существу, все, о чём пишет автор, согласуется с моим собственным видением Интернета и социальных сетей. Исключением, возможно, является вторая или третья глава, где автор размышляет о Section 230 – тема знакомая и актуальная скорее только для жителей США.
Итак, каждая глава книги, это определённое явление из мира Интернета, которая рисуется СМИ и лидерами общественного мнения, как имеющая потенциальную опасность для общества. К примеру, автор пишет, почему социальные сети имели минимальное влияние на президентскую кампанию 2016 года в США или почему Интернет и компьютерные технологии не представляют опасности для молодого поколения. Очень верное замечание автора насчёт того, что такие интернет сайты как YouTube дают рекомендации пользователям, базируясь на их предыдущем опыте, что означает, что если человека не интересует какая-то тема, то он и никогда не увидит видеоролики с подобным содержанием. Другими словами, сторонник демократической партии США будет видеть видеоролики с которыми он уже согласен и которые разделяются так же его группой политических сторонников того или иного кандидата. Это к тому, что СМИ не правы, когда пишут, что некий сайт или социальные сети способны навязывать контент людям который эти люди не желают видеть и с которым они изначально не согласны. Другими словами, сторонники демократической партии США, скорее всего, никогда не увидят сообщения, предназначенные сторонникам республиканской партии и наоборот. Это в свою очередь означает, что расистские сообщения читаются и смотрятся только теми, кто заранее разделяет подобные взгляды. В связи с этим так же интересное наблюдение автора, согласно которому политический контент стремится к усреднённости, а не, наоборот, к поляризованности и радикализму. Не могу сказать, насколько это верно, но звучит интересно. И это опять подтверждает тезис, что Интернет и социальные сети не являются главными инструментами распространения радикальных идей (как будто до Интернета люди не распространяли радикальные материалы и идеи).
Я не могу сказать, что автор глубоко анализирует выбранную им тему и поэтому я согласен с другим читателем, что книга является всё же не достаточно глубокой. Скорее книга представляет из себя расширенную (до формата книги) журналистскую статью. А как часто бывает со статьями в газетах и журналах, век их не долог. Так как я полностью согласен с автором, я мало что запомнил из книги. Для меня, можно сказать, все, что он написал, является простым здравым смыслом.
The book would be an excellent choice for those readers who see social media and/or the Internet (per se) as a threat to society. For example, the book answers the question of why social media contributed minimally (if at all) to Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election. Since I was interested in this particular case, the rest of the chapters left a less strong impression. In essence, everything the author writes about is consistent with my own view of the Internet and social media. The exception, perhaps, is the second or third chapter, where the author reflects on Section 230, a topic familiar and relevant only to US residents.
So, each chapter of the book is a certain phenomenon from the world of the Internet, which is painted by the media and opinion leaders as having a potential danger to society. For example, the author writes why social media had minimal impact on the 2016 US presidential campaign or why the Internet and computer technology are not dangerous for the younger generation. The author makes a very good point about the fact that internet sites like YouTube make recommendations to users based on their previous experience, which means that if a person is not interested in a certain topic, they will never see videos with such content. In other words, a supporter of the US Democratic Party will see videos that he or she already agrees with and that are shared by his or her group of political supporters of a particular candidate. This is to say that the media is wrong when they write that a certain website or social media is able to force content on people that these people do not want to see and do not agree with in the first place. In other words, supporters of the US Democratic Party will likely never see messages intended for supporters of the Republican Party and vice versa. This means that racist messages are read and viewed only by those who share such views in advance. In this regard, the author's observation that political content tends to be average rather than, on the contrary, polarised and radicalized, is also interesting. I can't say how true this is, but it sounds interesting. It again confirms the thesis that the Internet and social networks are not the main tools for spreading radical ideas (as if people had not spread radical materials and ideas before the Internet).
I cannot say that the author deeply analyses his chosen topic, and therefore, I agree with another reader that the book is still not deep enough. Rather, the book is an expanded (to book format) journalistic article. And as is often the case with articles in newspapers and magazines, they do not last long. Since I completely agree with the author, I didn't remember much from the book. For me, one could say that everything he wrote is simple common sense.
Книга станет отличным выбором для тех читателей, которые видят в социальных сетях и/или Интернете (как таковом) угрозу для общества. К примеру, книга отвечает на вопрос, почему социальные сети внесли минимальный (если вообще какой-то) вклад в победу Дональда Трампа на выборах президента в 2016 году. Так как меня интересовала именно эта тема, то все остальные главы оставили менее сильное впечатление. По существу, все, о чём пишет автор, согласуется с моим собственным видением Интернета и социальных сетей. Исключением, возможно, является вторая или третья глава, где автор размышляет о Section 230 – тема знакомая и актуальная скорее только для жителей США.
Итак, каждая глава книги, это определённое явление из мира Интернета, которая рисуется СМИ и лидерами общественного мнения, как имеющая потенциальную опасность для общества. К примеру, автор пишет, почему социальные сети имели минимальное влияние на президентскую кампанию 2016 года в США или почему Интернет и компьютерные технологии не представляют опасности для молодого поколения. Очень верное замечание автора насчёт того, что такие интернет сайты как YouTube дают рекомендации пользователям, базируясь на их предыдущем опыте, что означает, что если человека не интересует какая-то тема, то он и никогда не увидит видеоролики с подобным содержанием. Другими словами, сторонник демократической партии США будет видеть видеоролики с которыми он уже согласен и которые разделяются так же его группой политических сторонников того или иного кандидата. Это к тому, что СМИ не правы, когда пишут, что некий сайт или социальные сети способны навязывать контент людям который эти люди не желают видеть и с которым они изначально не согласны. Другими словами, сторонники демократической партии США, скорее всего, никогда не увидят сообщения, предназначенные сторонникам республиканской партии и наоборот. Это в свою очередь означает, что расистские сообщения читаются и смотрятся только теми, кто заранее разделяет подобные взгляды. В связи с этим так же интересное наблюдение автора, согласно которому политический контент стремится к усреднённости, а не, наоборот, к поляризованности и радикализму. Не могу сказать, насколько это верно, но звучит интересно. И это опять подтверждает тезис, что Интернет и социальные сети не являются главными инструментами распространения радикальных идей (как будто до Интернета люди не распространяли радикальные материалы и идеи).
Я не могу сказать, что автор глубоко анализирует выбранную им тему и поэтому я согласен с другим читателем, что книга является всё же не достаточно глубокой. Скорее книга представляет из себя расширенную (до формата книги) журналистскую статью. А как часто бывает со статьями в газетах и журналах, век их не долог. Так как я полностью согласен с автором, я мало что запомнил из книги. Для меня, можно сказать, все, что он написал, является простым здравым смыслом.
The book would be an excellent choice for those readers who see social media and/or the Internet (per se) as a threat to society. For example, the book answers the question of why social media contributed minimally (if at all) to Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election. Since I was interested in this particular case, the rest of the chapters left a less strong impression. In essence, everything the author writes about is consistent with my own view of the Internet and social media. The exception, perhaps, is the second or third chapter, where the author reflects on Section 230, a topic familiar and relevant only to US residents.
So, each chapter of the book is a certain phenomenon from the world of the Internet, which is painted by the media and opinion leaders as having a potential danger to society. For example, the author writes why social media had minimal impact on the 2016 US presidential campaign or why the Internet and computer technology are not dangerous for the younger generation. The author makes a very good point about the fact that internet sites like YouTube make recommendations to users based on their previous experience, which means that if a person is not interested in a certain topic, they will never see videos with such content. In other words, a supporter of the US Democratic Party will see videos that he or she already agrees with and that are shared by his or her group of political supporters of a particular candidate. This is to say that the media is wrong when they write that a certain website or social media is able to force content on people that these people do not want to see and do not agree with in the first place. In other words, supporters of the US Democratic Party will likely never see messages intended for supporters of the Republican Party and vice versa. This means that racist messages are read and viewed only by those who share such views in advance. In this regard, the author's observation that political content tends to be average rather than, on the contrary, polarised and radicalized, is also interesting. I can't say how true this is, but it sounds interesting. It again confirms the thesis that the Internet and social networks are not the main tools for spreading radical ideas (as if people had not spread radical materials and ideas before the Internet).
I cannot say that the author deeply analyses his chosen topic, and therefore, I agree with another reader that the book is still not deep enough. Rather, the book is an expanded (to book format) journalistic article. And as is often the case with articles in newspapers and magazines, they do not last long. Since I completely agree with the author, I didn't remember much from the book. For me, one could say that everything he wrote is simple common sense.
October 24, 2021
This is by far one of the most important books of 2021 or even the last decade when it comes to the conversation around social media and technology. As a millennial who grew up as the internet and social media exploded, I’ve felt like a crazy person seeing all of the fear about technology and these social networks. Robby Soave is the voice of reason while everyone is losing their minds. This book breaks down just about every fear people have about social media from radicalization to misinformation and mental health, and he debunks just about all of them. Soave doesn’t say there are no problems, but he dials back the panic and has a realistic, evidence-based outlook on what’s going on.
The book discusses each of the mainstream news stories that have come out about social media such as Russia’s involvement in the elections and Cambridge Analytica. Using real data, Soave shows the minimal effects these had on our elections. He also picks apart the smash-hit documentary The Social Dilemma and the fear it spread. And when it comes to discussions around regulation and free speech, Robby is a libertarian and has a very nuanced conversation about these topics. I really hope everyone gets their hands on this book because it’s so important, and the only comparable book I can think of is from Duke Polarization Lab director Chris Bail, Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing.
The book discusses each of the mainstream news stories that have come out about social media such as Russia’s involvement in the elections and Cambridge Analytica. Using real data, Soave shows the minimal effects these had on our elections. He also picks apart the smash-hit documentary The Social Dilemma and the fear it spread. And when it comes to discussions around regulation and free speech, Robby is a libertarian and has a very nuanced conversation about these topics. I really hope everyone gets their hands on this book because it’s so important, and the only comparable book I can think of is from Duke Polarization Lab director Chris Bail, Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing.
March 25, 2022
Is big tech the source of all evil? Soave argued it’s not.
1. Section 230: it absolves the platform from being responsible for comments posted. Without this protection we won’t be able to use our phone at all. Imagine every comment have to be vetted, including WhatsApp messages (since it can be broadcast to many people).
2. Cambridge Analytics: mind control of targeted audience? It’s power was mostly hype as found by the detailed UK Information Commissioner’s Office report. The ICO report did not find any actual interference with the Brexit campaign.
3. Social media causing extremists to form groups: that’s the nature of social media. A lot of good groups have been formed as well. Sometimes social media companies cooperated with law enforcement to track terrorists. Banning them would just drive them underground.
4. Social media is not more biased than traditional media. New York Times is anti-Republican. Fox News is anti-Democrats.
5. Childhood pornography: it is clearly wrong. However a lot of offenders are actually minors. Teenagers who share their own photo on social media can be charged with felony! However, revenge porn and sex grooming must be more proactively taken down by platforms.
6. Sex worker on Craigslist: banned. Onlyfans: pressurised by banks and investors to ban porn. Soave posited that this is actually the safest work for sex workers.
7. The current internet giants are popular because they provide good services that users like. They can however go down rather quickly when something better comes along. Just ask MySpace and Yahoo.
8. Internet addiction in teens: what else do we expect teenagers to do during the pandemic when schools are closed and they can’t really go out? Social media and online gaming allows them to at least keep up with their friends. Without the internet, the pandemic restrictions would have been unbearable.
8. Cancel culture: trolls digging up a single comment made by someone in order to punish the said person. Sometimes the accusation is not even true.
I find Soave’s arguments well researched, persuasive and pragmatic.
1. Section 230: it absolves the platform from being responsible for comments posted. Without this protection we won’t be able to use our phone at all. Imagine every comment have to be vetted, including WhatsApp messages (since it can be broadcast to many people).
2. Cambridge Analytics: mind control of targeted audience? It’s power was mostly hype as found by the detailed UK Information Commissioner’s Office report. The ICO report did not find any actual interference with the Brexit campaign.
3. Social media causing extremists to form groups: that’s the nature of social media. A lot of good groups have been formed as well. Sometimes social media companies cooperated with law enforcement to track terrorists. Banning them would just drive them underground.
4. Social media is not more biased than traditional media. New York Times is anti-Republican. Fox News is anti-Democrats.
5. Childhood pornography: it is clearly wrong. However a lot of offenders are actually minors. Teenagers who share their own photo on social media can be charged with felony! However, revenge porn and sex grooming must be more proactively taken down by platforms.
6. Sex worker on Craigslist: banned. Onlyfans: pressurised by banks and investors to ban porn. Soave posited that this is actually the safest work for sex workers.
7. The current internet giants are popular because they provide good services that users like. They can however go down rather quickly when something better comes along. Just ask MySpace and Yahoo.
8. Internet addiction in teens: what else do we expect teenagers to do during the pandemic when schools are closed and they can’t really go out? Social media and online gaming allows them to at least keep up with their friends. Without the internet, the pandemic restrictions would have been unbearable.
8. Cancel culture: trolls digging up a single comment made by someone in order to punish the said person. Sometimes the accusation is not even true.
I find Soave’s arguments well researched, persuasive and pragmatic.
October 6, 2021
Robby Soave, a journalist and editor at the libertarian magazine Reason, has developed a reputation for doing thorough investigative reporting into free speech issues. media malpractice, cancel culture, hate crime hoaxes, and related stories. Soave is now translating his journalistic talents into book length projects. Tech Panic is Soave's follow-up book to Panic Attack, which was a skeptical perspective on left-wing millennial activism.
Tech Panic is loosely focused on the various cultural and political concerns raised about social media platform and large technology companies (e.g. Google). These concerns are very wide-ranging and probably should have been organized more coherently or trimmed down so that greater depth could have been provided. However, Soave general message is that most of the political discourse about "Big Tech" is overwrought, often clamoring for the abridgment of essential rights like freedom of expression or foolishly dangerous interference with market capitalism. The one possible central throughline of the work is a libertarian defense of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I largely agree with Soave 'sanalysis and perspective on these issues. In fact, I was a bit surprised that Soave's position was somewhat sympathetic to government regulation or intervention with particular issues.
Tech Panic makes for a quick and accessible read, but it lacks the requisite depth and thoughtfulness that this topics warrants, especially given the amount of writing that exists on the topic. Soave did engage with a few of these thinkers but again not with any depth or focus because of the wide scope of the book. This work is probably a good introduction to lay readers who are largely or somewhat unfamiliar with debates and discussions about "Big Tech," but otherwise is not a critical addition to this topic.
*Disclaimer: Received this work as an ARC through NetGalley.
Tech Panic is loosely focused on the various cultural and political concerns raised about social media platform and large technology companies (e.g. Google). These concerns are very wide-ranging and probably should have been organized more coherently or trimmed down so that greater depth could have been provided. However, Soave general message is that most of the political discourse about "Big Tech" is overwrought, often clamoring for the abridgment of essential rights like freedom of expression or foolishly dangerous interference with market capitalism. The one possible central throughline of the work is a libertarian defense of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I largely agree with Soave 'sanalysis and perspective on these issues. In fact, I was a bit surprised that Soave's position was somewhat sympathetic to government regulation or intervention with particular issues.
Tech Panic makes for a quick and accessible read, but it lacks the requisite depth and thoughtfulness that this topics warrants, especially given the amount of writing that exists on the topic. Soave did engage with a few of these thinkers but again not with any depth or focus because of the wide scope of the book. This work is probably a good introduction to lay readers who are largely or somewhat unfamiliar with debates and discussions about "Big Tech," but otherwise is not a critical addition to this topic.
*Disclaimer: Received this work as an ARC through NetGalley.
February 13, 2022
Robby Soave is making a name for himself among the younger generation of libertarian journalists. His Tech Panic addresses many of the overblown concerns and bad recommendations about social media. The attacks come from both the right and the left, and they’re disturbingly similar even though the two sides hate each other. They’re often attacks on free speech as such.
I should mention that I don’t like the big social media platforms very much. Rather than go off on a major rant, I’ll just leave it at that. I make minimal use of Facebook and have given up on Twitter, and I’m not biased in their favor.
Politicians often demand the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The bulk of the CDA was declared unconstitutional, but Section 230 remains as protection for hosting companies and their users. It says, basically, that websites aren’t responsible for user-posted content. There are some exceptions; for instance, hosts have to take down child porn as fast as they can. But if a user violates a copyright or libels a person, the liability falls on the user, not the host.
Without Section 230 protection, social media sites would have to be more proactive in taking down user content. For their own protection, they’d need to remove content in borderline cases and perhaps even review everything before it becomes visible. This would make it harder to post controversial material. Trump wants 230 repealed because he thinks that it would mean fewer takedowns. We don’t expect Trump to make sense, but Biden also wants its repeal: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” That’s the usual Biden incoherence, but at least we know what he wants.
Soave suggests, “Perhaps Bien and Warren want to live in a world where social media is required to vet content for accuracy and liability before it is published because they are politically savvy, and realize that this would harm conservative speech.”
Another big concern is Internet addiction. We’re told that people spend all day staring into their phones, not having any real-life interactions with people. (This concern started even before COVID made it a frequent necessity.) Soave argues convincingly that this fear is mostly overblown, noting similar dire warnings throughout history. Pocket radios, television, and perhaps even the invention of writing provoked similar reactions.
He argues against the claim that the Internet promotes echo chambers, saying “study after study casts doubt on it.” Here I’m skeptical, based on my personal experience. People who spend a lot of time on Facebook or Twitter become nasty. But I haven’t done studies, and maybe I’m wrong.
While a lot in the book is good, I get the impression that Soave’s knowledge of Internet technology doesn’t run deep. He keeps ascribing intentions to algorithms, as if computational procedures had desires and wishes. He says very little about encryption, even when talking about terrorists’ use of Telegraph to communicate. There isn’t much about security issues. For whatever reason, the book stays clear of topics that would require more than an average user’s understanding of the tech. That’s a better choice than getting in over his head and saying things that don’t make sense, so I’ll give him credit for restraint.
Tech Panic shows that many fears of the Internet are excessive while warning that politicians may make things worse by exploiting those fears. Soave doesn’t deny there are problems, but he puts them in perspective. I recommend the book for both the perspective and the warning.
This review was previously posted on my blog.
I should mention that I don’t like the big social media platforms very much. Rather than go off on a major rant, I’ll just leave it at that. I make minimal use of Facebook and have given up on Twitter, and I’m not biased in their favor.
Politicians often demand the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The bulk of the CDA was declared unconstitutional, but Section 230 remains as protection for hosting companies and their users. It says, basically, that websites aren’t responsible for user-posted content. There are some exceptions; for instance, hosts have to take down child porn as fast as they can. But if a user violates a copyright or libels a person, the liability falls on the user, not the host.
Without Section 230 protection, social media sites would have to be more proactive in taking down user content. For their own protection, they’d need to remove content in borderline cases and perhaps even review everything before it becomes visible. This would make it harder to post controversial material. Trump wants 230 repealed because he thinks that it would mean fewer takedowns. We don’t expect Trump to make sense, but Biden also wants its repeal: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” That’s the usual Biden incoherence, but at least we know what he wants.
Soave suggests, “Perhaps Bien and Warren want to live in a world where social media is required to vet content for accuracy and liability before it is published because they are politically savvy, and realize that this would harm conservative speech.”
Another big concern is Internet addiction. We’re told that people spend all day staring into their phones, not having any real-life interactions with people. (This concern started even before COVID made it a frequent necessity.) Soave argues convincingly that this fear is mostly overblown, noting similar dire warnings throughout history. Pocket radios, television, and perhaps even the invention of writing provoked similar reactions.
He argues against the claim that the Internet promotes echo chambers, saying “study after study casts doubt on it.” Here I’m skeptical, based on my personal experience. People who spend a lot of time on Facebook or Twitter become nasty. But I haven’t done studies, and maybe I’m wrong.
While a lot in the book is good, I get the impression that Soave’s knowledge of Internet technology doesn’t run deep. He keeps ascribing intentions to algorithms, as if computational procedures had desires and wishes. He says very little about encryption, even when talking about terrorists’ use of Telegraph to communicate. There isn’t much about security issues. For whatever reason, the book stays clear of topics that would require more than an average user’s understanding of the tech. That’s a better choice than getting in over his head and saying things that don’t make sense, so I’ll give him credit for restraint.
Tech Panic shows that many fears of the Internet are excessive while warning that politicians may make things worse by exploiting those fears. Soave doesn’t deny there are problems, but he puts them in perspective. I recommend the book for both the perspective and the warning.
This review was previously posted on my blog.
October 13, 2021
Easy read. Confirms some of my priors, such as a skepticism of allowing government to rewrite section 230. Presently section 230 holds that online social media are not publishers, meaning nearly anything can be posted on things such as facebook (other than things such as child porn). Rewriting section 230 in the way many politicians call for would make facebook and other social media a publisher meaning they would need to approve posts before allowing them to be posted bc they would be held reliable for all the content posted and thus open to many lawsuits. The two notable problems being 1) having social media as a squared forum free expression is one of the most freeing and liberal innovations humanity has ever created. Even when it means 'fake news' will be an inevitable problem. The benefits far outweigh the consequences. Additionally, social pressure on social media sites have more or less forced social media sites into regulating some of its content to try to prevent things such as 'fake news.' A rewriting of section 230 that makes social media a publisher would dramatically (and legally) increase this responsibility meaning the freedom to speak (even incorrectly) would be prohibited online. And 2) many people are worried about some social media's pseudo monopoly of social media. Making social media companies publishers means that social media companies will need to hire staff to verify posts before they are 'published.' the companies that would benefit most from this are the biggest companies aka Facebook.
The book also challenged one deeply held (and often flaunted in conversations) prior; that social media is harming the mental health of our youths. I often site Gene Twengy's research that states that smartphones are increasing depression and suicide among the youths. However, there is other research that has been produced that indicates, Twengy's research is a correlation, but the causation is not necessarily smartphones. And not necessarily an unusual rate when expanding the timeline from 7 years to 27 years. the rates of depression are about on par then...
The book also challenged one deeply held (and often flaunted in conversations) prior; that social media is harming the mental health of our youths. I often site Gene Twengy's research that states that smartphones are increasing depression and suicide among the youths. However, there is other research that has been produced that indicates, Twengy's research is a correlation, but the causation is not necessarily smartphones. And not necessarily an unusual rate when expanding the timeline from 7 years to 27 years. the rates of depression are about on par then...
September 15, 2021
Solid Examination Of The Issues. I've read some of the author's work over the last year in particular on his primary employer's website (Reason.com), and that is actually how I found out about this book. So I knew roughly what to expect here, and that is pretty well what I got: a fairly solid look at the issues surrounding tech, elections, privacy, free speech, and other related issues from a moderate libertarian (small "L", to be clear, since these things matter in circles that will likely be most open to reading this book) perspective that is mostly well-reasoned from that particular mindset. As more of an avowed Anarchist (and former Libertarian Party official and candidate, though I myself was more moderate in that era) and software development professional, eh, Soave allows government a bit too much intervention into tech companies than I'm personally comfortable with. Even here, however, most who are more aligned with the left/ right divide in the US are going to be hit fairly equally and largely find various arguments here that they will (and sometimes do) champion and others that they will (and often do) despise. Which in the age of hyperpartisanship and barely-there "reasoning", is generally a sign of someone who *has* actually seriously and critically thought about the issues he is speaking of. An excellent work that really should be read by anyone trying to urge government action regarding technology companies, and thus one that quite a few should consider as we begin the march into the mid-term elections of 2022 in just a few more months. Very much recommended.
PS: The reason for the star deduction? Light bibliography, at least potentially corrected in a non-Advance Reader Copy version of the book. The ARC, however, had a bibliography that clocked in at just 9% of the text, vs a "more normal" range of 25-33% in my experience across almost 650 books since Jan 1, 2019 alone.
PS: The reason for the star deduction? Light bibliography, at least potentially corrected in a non-Advance Reader Copy version of the book. The ARC, however, had a bibliography that clocked in at just 9% of the text, vs a "more normal" range of 25-33% in my experience across almost 650 books since Jan 1, 2019 alone.
June 18, 2022
From Robby Soave, award-winning journalist and author of the “methodical, earnest, and insightful” (The Guardian) Panic Attack, an examination of recent kneejerk calls to regulate Big Tech.
While this what Google Books tell you, I felt the book was using facts to show only one side of the story and less inclined to how it’s become a bane.
So, I don’t hate social media, far from it.
But, somehow this is the first book around tech and social media, I felt was a propaganda to not regulate social media via Section 230. (Section 230- Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content.) and be more positive about its impact.
The author seems articulate, but doesn’t have structure or a flair of storytelling which makes the book repetitive and feels like it’s trying too hard.
My opinion, read the summary. You won’t miss much.
#bookreview #bised #bigtech #socialmedia #section230
While this what Google Books tell you, I felt the book was using facts to show only one side of the story and less inclined to how it’s become a bane.
So, I don’t hate social media, far from it.
But, somehow this is the first book around tech and social media, I felt was a propaganda to not regulate social media via Section 230. (Section 230- Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content.) and be more positive about its impact.
The author seems articulate, but doesn’t have structure or a flair of storytelling which makes the book repetitive and feels like it’s trying too hard.
My opinion, read the summary. You won’t miss much.
#bookreview #bised #bigtech #socialmedia #section230
October 3, 2021
Robbie is a tremendous journalist but this was a little light for me. He doesn’t really offer a solution (albeit he is arguing a problem doesn’t exist and is correct) for government overreach in the tech sector. He makes a compelling argument for tech being a net good however I’m not sure that’s enough.
October 9, 2021
Solid and well-reasoned (pun not intended, but I left it in) work as always. I may differ with Robby’s thoughts in the chapter on screen addiction from personal observations, but that I haven’t made a huge study of it.
March 31, 2022
I’m not sure how I felt about this book. Parts I loved, parts I hated. Sometimes it leaned left, sometimes right, sometimes in the middle. I learned about section 230. Never was afraid of big tech. Author uses “indeed a lot.
October 8, 2021
Enjoyable well researched book. I enjoy Soave's work for Reason and wasn't disappointed.
October 12, 2021
A great summary of reasons not to panic about tech. Cool your jets, everyone!
May 16, 2022
A must read for anyone who cares about technology and esp about children and tech. The problems are not what you think they are. Neither are the solutions.
March 5, 2023
I had to read this for my argumentative essay for my outside reading college class 🥲
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews