Nonfiction

The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World

The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World

  • Downloads：4105
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-07-05 04:16:35
  • Update Date：2025-09-23
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Evgeny Morozov
  • ISBN：014104957X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

In The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World Evgeny Morozov argues that our utopian， internet-centric thinking holds devastating consequences for the future of democracy。

We were promised that the internet would set us free。 From the Middle East's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook activism， technology would spread democracy and bring us together as never before。

We couldn't have been more wrong。 In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov shows why internet freedom is an illusion。 Not only that - in many cases the net is actually helping oppressive regimes to stifle dissent， track dissidents and keep people pacified， with companies such as Google and Amazon helping them do it。

This book shows that free information doesn't mean free people - and that， right now， everyone's liberty is at stake。

'Offers a rare note of wisdom and common sense， on an issue overwhelmed by digital utopians'
  Malcolm Gladwell

'Passionate， admirable and important'
  Observer

'The book is a wake-up call to those who think the internet is the solution to all our problems'
  Daily Telegraph

'A delight 。。。 his demolition job on the embarrassments of "internet freedom" is comprehensive'
  Independent

'A compelling rebuff 。。。 required reading for everyone'
  Sunday Times

'Piercing 。。。 convincing 。。。 timely'
  Financial Times

Evgeny Morozov is a contributing editor to Foreign Policy and runs the magazine's influential and widely-quoted 'Net Effect' blog about the Internet's impact on global politics。 Morozov is currently a Yahoo！ fellow at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University。

Download

Reviews

Merrick Andreone ，

Took me a long time to finish because I stopped getting the tram to work

Gui ，

Nunca imaginei que um livro “sobre tecnologia” com mais de 10 anos pudesse ser tão atual e necessário nos dias de hoje para - usando jargão da área - dar um upgrade na forma como tecnologias são introduzidas no nosso dia-a-dia social， cultural e （geo）político！Leitura recomendadíssima ！

Alessandro Ghio ，

TL;DR: 400 pages to state， in a rather apocalyptic tone， that the internet is not free without giving enough space to the people who are actively working to make it free（er）， though the parts on how and when the whole techno-utopianism ideology has originated were worth reading。 Overall a necessary book， but if you got to know about its existence you probably already know everything that's written inside。 TL;DR: 400 pages to state， in a rather apocalyptic tone， that the internet is not free without giving enough space to the people who are actively working to make it free（er）， though the parts on how and when the whole techno-utopianism ideology has originated were worth reading。 Overall a necessary book， but if you got to know about its existence you probably already know everything that's written inside。 。。。more

Peter ，

I finished this a few years too late， and maybe you did， too: a lot of Morozov's assertions about the dark potential of the internet were on full display since the mid-2010s。 He alludes the rise of Trumpian misinformation， Russian ops within Facebook， the purges in Sri Lanka and Burma， the billions of dollars spent on the domestic surveillance state， and the professionalization of cyber-crime through Silk Road and ransomware firms。 All these things run counter to the cyber-utopianism that serves I finished this a few years too late， and maybe you did， too: a lot of Morozov's assertions about the dark potential of the internet were on full display since the mid-2010s。 He alludes the rise of Trumpian misinformation， Russian ops within Facebook， the purges in Sri Lanka and Burma， the billions of dollars spent on the domestic surveillance state， and the professionalization of cyber-crime through Silk Road and ransomware firms。 All these things run counter to the cyber-utopianism that serves as this book's foil， and reading this today， in 2021， I feel a bit late to the party。But I think the value is that *these lessons are still germane today。* For a designer such as myself， it is a reminder that we must consider not the intended use of our product， but whether it meets the needs of humans in the context that they will use it in。 Technological determinism is a faulty construct with a political subtext: tech is good， it arcs toward justice in all things， and that anything can be solved on a technical means。 This absolves Silicon Valley and tech firms of their actions， and our policymakers of reviewing their assumptions or actions。 Read this for a wholly different look at the internet in the context of technological development throughout human history。 Prepare to be sobered， maybe a little wounded， but at least you'll be clear-eyed afterwards。 。。。more

Tom Calvard ，

Ironically， I expected this book to be more purely about technology。 It turns out to be more about how we should not focus too much on technology at the expense of more informed thinking about policymaking and specific social and political contexts。 It provides some much-needed critical coverage on issues to do with the complex effects of the Internet on forms of democracy and authoritarianism。 It is particularly good on the 'information trinity' of authoritarianism - propaganda， censorship and Ironically， I expected this book to be more purely about technology。 It turns out to be more about how we should not focus too much on technology at the expense of more informed thinking about policymaking and specific social and political contexts。 It provides some much-needed critical coverage on issues to do with the complex effects of the Internet on forms of democracy and authoritarianism。 It is particularly good on the 'information trinity' of authoritarianism - propaganda， censorship and surveillance。 Most of the chapters are variations on the same theme and general argument。 But a case is built up with considerable skill， blending current affairs journalism and cultural context with history and philosophy of science and technology。 For me， the real question is what has changed in the 10 years since the book was first published。 Have we grown any wiser to the dangers of cyber-utopianism and Internet-centrism？ Perhaps， but it still seems like we are poised on a threshold for Internet policymaking， with much of the work still lying ahead。 I hope the decision-makers are taking heed of this book's concluding call for a more level-headed 'cyber-realism' when it comes to Internet policymaking。 。。。more

Jennifer ，

Read for class， very policy oriented but applicable and thought-provoking。 Recognized myself in his cyber-utopianism definition and it gave me some added framework as I evaluate my relationship with technology。

Jimmy ，

I feel this book makes an error in claiming that democracy is the highest form of human achievement

Harshali ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Amazing book to understand how internet freedom has a positive as well as a negative impact on our social， political and economic prospect of life。 As rightly quoted in the book "Technology changes all the time， but human nature hardly ever" This book has many lines， where you relate yourself。 It makes you aware of what exactly is internet freedom， and what it does to us without our realisation。Morozov is amazing！ Amazing book to understand how internet freedom has a positive as well as a negative impact on our social， political and economic prospect of life。 As rightly quoted in the book "Technology changes all the time， but human nature hardly ever" This book has many lines， where you relate yourself。 It makes you aware of what exactly is internet freedom， and what it does to us without our realisation。Morozov is amazing！ 。。。more

JudithCollins ，

Contrarian as fuck。

Maryja Šupa ，

A primer on critical approaches to foreign policy and global communication。 Many points still valid in 2020。 Must-read for public decision-makers and policy analysts。

CTEP ，

The aim of this book is obvious from the outset: to critically examine the prevalent optimistic attitude that we have about the internet and its abilities to expand freedom and opportunity。 The author， Evgeny Morozov， is a brilliant internet policy analyst and he is associated with a lot of international rights groups and technology collaboratives。 I really respect his work as it is thoroughly researched and presented in an accessible way。The main thing that Morozov posits in this book is that i The aim of this book is obvious from the outset: to critically examine the prevalent optimistic attitude that we have about the internet and its abilities to expand freedom and opportunity。 The author， Evgeny Morozov， is a brilliant internet policy analyst and he is associated with a lot of international rights groups and technology collaboratives。 I really respect his work as it is thoroughly researched and presented in an accessible way。The main thing that Morozov posits in this book is that internet technologies really haven’t done much to advance democracy - something that seems more obvious after the 2016 US elections and Brexit than it did in 2012 when this book was published。 To Morozov， the idea of “information as freedom” is totally flawed and really is a delusion presented by powers that be。 The first part of the book sets out to dissuade us from the idea of “cyber-utopianism，” or the idea that technology will create a world in which we are all free and chilling all the time。 It is interesting to read this now because I think the number of people who identify as cyber-utopianists is much， much lower today than in the first decade of the 2000’s。The primary argument that Morozov makes against technology is that the ubiquity of entertainment technology （youtube videos， instagram feeds， etc。） creates a culture of laziness/indifference that stunts political activism。 When you have everything you need in your pocket （you can watch videos， call a friend， order groceries， etc。）， you may not care to exit that comfort zone when you learn about something very uncomfortable。 An example that I can think of is when everyone changed their profile pictures to have a red， blue and white tint in support of the victims of the terrorist attack in Paris a couple years ago。 Instead of making any effort to understand the nuances of the attack or doing anything at all to effect change in the systems that brought that attach to fruition， many were content to simply put a filter on one of their pictures to express “solidarity。” Morozov argues that this type of slacktivism actually achieves very little and it allows people to believe that they are making a difference when they are complacent in their own inaction。“When everyone in the group performs the same mundane tasks， it’s impossible to evaluate individual contributions， and people inevitably begin slacking off… Increasing the number of participants diminishes the relative social pressure on each and often results in inferior outputs （p。 193）”Morozov states that under an authoritarian ruler， one can remain apolitical as long as they are not bored; as long as they have entertainment available to keep occupied with。I think that Morozov avoids talking about certain political activism that has benefited from technology。 It is hard to say at this point how much political progress was made （there seems to at least be some cultural progress） by the #MeToo movement， but we have to admit that the international popularity of this movement was partly enabled by technology/the internet。Overall， I think that this book is an important and perhaps indispensable critical perspective on internet technologies and political freedom。 I believe that Morozov was intending to present only this perspective， and he did just that elegantly。 However， it kind of feels like he is playing devil’s advocate more than inspiring nuances dialogue。 However important it is to present opposing viewpoints to the popular opinion， he doesn’t really present any sort of solution to our problem。 Do we destroy internet technology？ Do we repress entertainment services？ These both seem impossible and/or dumb。 I appreciated the ideas that he presented， but it felt too oppositional。As far as how this relates to service， I thought a lot about how internet technologies have made job seeking much more difficult for individuals with little technology skills and how it has made job seeking incredibly impersonal。 It sucks that some people are never considered for a job because they filled out the online application incorrectly or were unable to complete it。 People who have great interpersonal skills and would be wonderful at certain jobs simply do not get the chance to advocate for themselves as valuable potential employees， and I think that puts too much power into the hands of the employers。 Applying for jobs today involves sending out masses of online applications and I think that employers have to deal with more applications now than in the past when we relied on physical applications。 This means that each application has less value and therefore employers don’t have to care as much about even responding to an application。 Before， one would go to a place and meet the management and submit their application。 That’s a real person， standing in front of the manager， explaining why they would love to work at a certain establishment。 I think that managers/employers would have a lot more empathy for applicants that they actually speak with。 They would be more likely to consider people with more depth， as each application represents a whole person with a history and personality。 Today， employers need not even look at the majority of applications， they can simply scan all the apps for a particular piece of work history and then make calls after that。 If they are not professional or if they are rude to the potential employee， it doesn’t matter as much to them， they have many more applications that they can pick from。So in that way， I think that technology has really disempowered employees and especially employees that don’t have the technology skills to make their online applications competitive。 。。。more

Jeroen Kraan ，

Amazing how well this holds up a decade later。 Books about the internet tend to age more like fish than wine， but The Net Delusion is more relevant than ever。 It's almost hard to remember how optimistic most people were about the democratizing effect of the internet in the early 2000s， now that we have all experienced its capability to polarize and threaten democracy。 Morozov is spot on with most of his criticism， a lot of which has become commonplace， although it's interesting to see now what h Amazing how well this holds up a decade later。 Books about the internet tend to age more like fish than wine， but The Net Delusion is more relevant than ever。 It's almost hard to remember how optimistic most people were about the democratizing effect of the internet in the early 2000s， now that we have all experienced its capability to polarize and threaten democracy。 Morozov is spot on with most of his criticism， a lot of which has become commonplace， although it's interesting to see now what he missed out on。 Disinformation is barely mentioned; in fact， he mentions several instances of mis-/disinformation spreading online without critiquing its potential danger。 Perhaps the most important reason for this to be read today is to provide a wider lens for our ongoing discussions about the pro's and cons of our society moving online。 While we hear plenty about the dangers of Facebook and how it is run， or the law-evading escapades of Uber， it's also important to think about the internet as a whole and how it - apart from the individual companies and websites that are part of it - affects us。 。。。more

Hayley Hoffman ，

Had to read this book for school and it suuuuucked。

M。K。 South ，

DNF @20% too dry and technical。

nawir nawir ，

Jadi apa gunanya bikin petisi di Change。org？

Antonio Moreno Pini ，

Una visión crítica del impacto y adecuación de los gobiernos （Autoritarios preferentemente pero también no autoritarios） a la expansión de las redes sociales y el posible devenir de la mentalidad de los usuarios o ciudadanos en su conciencia social y política。EL libro desmiente un poco la idea del impacto en sociedades cerradas de las redes sociales en la creación y difusión de una activismos político 。 Una idea que se transmite sobretodo desde USA con la utilidad de las redes sociales para prop Una visión crítica del impacto y adecuación de los gobiernos （Autoritarios preferentemente pero también no autoritarios） a la expansión de las redes sociales y el posible devenir de la mentalidad de los usuarios o ciudadanos en su conciencia social y política。EL libro desmiente un poco la idea del impacto en sociedades cerradas de las redes sociales en la creación y difusión de una activismos político 。 Una idea que se transmite sobretodo desde USA con la utilidad de las redes sociales para propiciar más democracia y cambios de régimen políiticos en países autoritarios o no democráticos。Visto en perspectiva se observa que el impacto causado ha sido más bien pequeño contra lo que se nosha vendido， es más en muchos casos esas mismas herramientas que algunos comentaristas o politicos han ensalzado como liberadores han permitido acabar con la posible disidencia en el aspecto que ha facilitado a los estados identificar a las personas implicadas y poder reprimirlas。También estudia en un cápitulo la adaptació de los gobiernos autoritarios a internet y que muchos de ellos se decantan mas por una visión huxleiana de Internet que no Orwelliana， en el sentido de ofrecer entretenimiento barato （en muchos casos pirata， pero aceptado） para que la gente no piense y no tome conciencia social de muchas situaciones。 De cualquier forma todos los estados se posicionan en una posición intermedia ofreciendo el entretenimiento pero a la vez vigilando mas a los ciudadanos， que hacen y donde lo hacen。En muchos aspectos se ha conseguido que la censura no sea tanto de los estados como de los propios ISP （proveedores de servicios de Internet） por ataques de denegación de servicios o presiones a la operativa。Otro punto expuesto es el contrasentido de ofrecer herramientas para saltarse Firewalls en estados autoritarios y a la vez controlar el uso de internet de los ciudadanos。 Exportando democracia hacia afuera y limitando la privacidad en el propio país al dificultar el acceso a muchas opiniones。Punteado con ejemplos la lectura ofrece un panorama completo y revelador con una cierta profundidad del análisis del impacto real。Pensamientos interesantes : " el numero de twits en las protestas en Iran， no es tan relevante internamente si el 90% de los twits son de ciudadanos fuera de Iran。"， "EL seguimiento en Twitter o Facebook de unas ideas no cambia nada si en el momento de unas elecciones， no se afectan"， "Una idea en twitter compartida o un like no significa un voto" 。。。more

Dmitry Semenovykh ，

Не понравилось。 Автор использует малоизвестную фактуру и ее комменттрует。 В случае России выбранные примеры не самые важные， выводам на их основе сложно доверять。 Такое же отношение складывается к остальным темам。 При этом главный тезис （развитие технологий автоматически не приводит к демократии） и аргументация по его поводу звучит убедительно

Britta ，

Clear standpoint。 Sometimes a bit repetitive。 Curious to see what Morozov his view would have been a few years later， especially with the rise of 'fake news'。 Clear standpoint。 Sometimes a bit repetitive。 Curious to see what Morozov his view would have been a few years later， especially with the rise of 'fake news'。 。。。more

Alexey Alexeyenko ，

I wish I have started reading this book from Acknowledgement。 Open Society Foundation is major sponsor of the book and it immediately negates all author's efforts to be balanced storyteller and respected scientist。 I would never spend my time reading。While reading the feeling never left me that Morozov is trying to look at issues from different point of view， but his struggles lost in vein。 Endless repetition of code words - "We on the West"， "Hilary Clinton"， "they 。。。 authoritarian"， etc - rev I wish I have started reading this book from Acknowledgement。 Open Society Foundation is major sponsor of the book and it immediately negates all author's efforts to be balanced storyteller and respected scientist。 I would never spend my time reading。While reading the feeling never left me that Morozov is trying to look at issues from different point of view， but his struggles lost in vein。 Endless repetition of code words - "We on the West"， "Hilary Clinton"， "they 。。。 authoritarian"， etc - reviles the ugly face of paid propagandist and apologist of criminal policies covered by "democracy" mantra。 I am not interested to know Morozov's opinions of the matter when Snowden published his findings。 I am sure Morozov came up with "democratic" explanations， whitewashing the true evil business of his sponsors in a fancy manner。3 stars for number of interesting facts found in the book。 。。。more

arkan ，

Morozov views that Western policymakers' opinions regarding internet freedom very much reflects their Cold War upbringing， in part thinking that the internet is like the samizdat。 In reality， the internet can be used by both democracy promoters and anti-democracy groups to both promote their own causes。Furthermore， Morozov also highlights how the internet can be used by authoritarian governments for surveillance and censorship， citing Russian and Chinese examples。Some parts of this book can be v Morozov views that Western policymakers' opinions regarding internet freedom very much reflects their Cold War upbringing， in part thinking that the internet is like the samizdat。 In reality， the internet can be used by both democracy promoters and anti-democracy groups to both promote their own causes。Furthermore， Morozov also highlights how the internet can be used by authoritarian governments for surveillance and censorship， citing Russian and Chinese examples。Some parts of this book can be very eye-opening。 In one part， Morozov states that we should now consider the Orwell-Huxley debate obsolete， because in a world with internet， the government can do both: provide mind-lulling entertainment that distracts the masses from politics and censor speech at the same time。Writing from 2010， this book holds the prescient opening salvo for policies regarding "internet freedom" and "cyber-utopianism"。 We see some of what this book suggests these days， with China's social rating system and various strongmen "poli-tainment" experienced by millions all over the world， especially the oppressed Global South。One letdown from the book is that it holds back from venturing to policy recommendations， but instead provides a manifesto for what a "cyber-realist" （vs。 a "cyber-utopianist"） would look like and what positions they would hold。 However， I figure that this letdown is not so big， and should not detract from the overall rating of the book。 4。75/5。 。。。more

BlackOxford ，

On Epistemology in DemocracyGlobal experience over the last decade is clear: internet social technology poses a far greater threat to democracies than it does to the world’s authoritarian regimes。 Morozov was one of the first to recognize this as a likely possibility years before Donald Trump executed his coup of the American Republican Party and Vladimir Putin mounted his successful cyber-attack on the US elections。 The prevailing wisdom before Twitter and Facebook and the virtually infinite bl On Epistemology in DemocracyGlobal experience over the last decade is clear: internet social technology poses a far greater threat to democracies than it does to the world’s authoritarian regimes。 Morozov was one of the first to recognize this as a likely possibility years before Donald Trump executed his coup of the American Republican Party and Vladimir Putin mounted his successful cyber-attack on the US elections。 The prevailing wisdom before Twitter and Facebook and the virtually infinite blogosphere was that the free flow of information and opinion was a path not just to factual general truth about the world but to the specific truth of liberal democracy。 The internet was “Radio Free Europe on steroids。” Information that was ‘dis-intermediated’ from the interference of government and the constraints of cost would， it was presumed， promote massive popular unrest and lead to “regime change from within。” The Fukuyama thesis that a global liberal/capitalist society was inevitable would be realized。This sort of “cyber-Utopianism” not only misunderstands the technology of the internet， it also misunderstands the vulnerabilities of liberal democracy and the interests of corporate capital。 Democratic states are only formally constructed on constitutions。 What matters practically in their functioning is a complex network of institutions - the press and other news media， political parties， lobbyists， and technical experts from the corporate world and academia to name only a few。 Elections and their protocols are largely the result of how these other pivotal institutions function （or don’t）， not the other way round。 We depend upon them to filter， and sift， and verify what purport to be facts of the world。But the internet has a major institutional advantage over these traditional sources of public information: cost。 Social apps are private and commercially developed。 Bloggers get sponsors or produce their editorials for nothing。 It looks therefore like the perfect link between corporate capitalism and liberal democracy。 The flaw in this train of thought is that corporate commerciality has little interest in the distinction between fact and fiction。 What sells， sells。 To put the matter succinctly: truth has precisely zero commercial value。 By by-passing other institutions， the internet eliminates the myriad of epistemological checks and balances that exist in a democratic culture。 Trump’s Twitter feed is unedited and doesn’t come packaged with editorial comment， except for his own。 The man is his own ‘trusted source。’ His followers are willing customers who have been conditioned by a lifetime of sophisticated advertising to accept self-serving assertions as statements of fact。 Twitter has no interest in the veracity of his tweets， just their effect on the size of their customer base。 And as Russian and Chinese hackers have demonstrated beyond doubt， fake news can be inserted freely into technological networks for many purposes other than self-promotion。 The absence of epistemological filtering means that all ideas and opinions are equal。 In fact， the more outrageous， the more popular， and therefore the more commercial， the higher commercial value they have。 The internet is not Radio Free Europe on steroids; it is The National Enquirer delivered to every house and on every billboard in the country。 Whatever tendency there is in the United States to believe in conspiracies - from Communists under the bed to fluoride diluting natural essences - has been magnified by orders of magnitude。I’m not competent to know whether Morozov’s suggestions for overcoming the epistemological nakedness of the net are sensible。 Or even if they are still relevant after our experience during the 8 years since his book was published。 What is clear， however， is that very few technological or sociological pundits have a clue about the likely impact of technology， especially its impact on political systems。 That， and that there are a lot more surprises in store。Postscript: https://btcloud。bt。com/web/app/share/。。。 。。。more

Maru Kun ，

Published in 2011 but with a chapter titled 'Why the KGB Wants you to Join Facebook' and with articles like this: Tracing a Meme From the Internet’s Fringe to a Republican Slogan appearing in the NYT， I am thinking this might be worth a closer look。。。 Published in 2011 but with a chapter titled 'Why the KGB Wants you to Join Facebook' and with articles like this: Tracing a Meme From the Internet’s Fringe to a Republican Slogan appearing in the NYT， I am thinking this might be worth a closer look。。。 。。。more

Jorge Cab ，

I loved the idea and premise of the book but this is the biggest crap I’ve ever read， it took me three months to read it and took away any reading desire for the next three months。 Really， it seems that he could express his idea in a 60 pages book and I would have been enlightened in the same way but would have saved hours of painful reading。I must give the guy that the book is incredibly well documented so if you want to read one quote of after another for 320 pages this is the best thing you c I loved the idea and premise of the book but this is the biggest crap I’ve ever read， it took me three months to read it and took away any reading desire for the next three months。 Really， it seems that he could express his idea in a 60 pages book and I would have been enlightened in the same way but would have saved hours of painful reading。I must give the guy that the book is incredibly well documented so if you want to read one quote of after another for 320 pages this is the best thing you can ever read。My recommendation find an online article that summarises the book， you will learn things and won’t end up hating the author for wasting your time。 。。。more

Serena ，

This was a fascinating read。 It takes some time to really get into because the first few chapters are a bit dated - this book was published in 2011 and written in 2010 and thus focuses heavily on political situations from which we are now quite removed。 However， as the book progresses and broadens its scope， the lessons， warnings， and information Morozov provides is truthfully more relevant than ever， and the book is a challenging undertaking in examining deep structures of our current political This was a fascinating read。 It takes some time to really get into because the first few chapters are a bit dated - this book was published in 2011 and written in 2010 and thus focuses heavily on political situations from which we are now quite removed。 However， as the book progresses and broadens its scope， the lessons， warnings， and information Morozov provides is truthfully more relevant than ever， and the book is a challenging undertaking in examining deep structures of our current political and social landscape that too often go completely unremarked upon。 His perspective is at times too centrist-liberal for me - a few too many lukewarm mentions of regime change without nearly enough pondering about the actual justice （or lack thereof） or regime change， and some， but not nearly enough， consideration of the tendencies of our state， and Western states as a whole to fall into these same （or similar） situations he describes as being symptomatic of authoritarian states。 。。。more

Pcbernhard ，

interesting book on the dark side of internet， but it tends to become repetitive and unstructured at some point， so I tended to swipe through the last 100 pages。

Ian Scuffling ，

Granted The Net Delusion is almost a decade old now， its relevance has really come into its own in the past two years where the US has had a kind of social media comeuppance on the grandest scale; i。e。 the obsession with the Russian meddling in the 2016 elections and the dissemination of “fake news” across social channels are part of the core of what Morozov talks about in this book to express why cyber-utopianism is not just naïve arrogance， but dangerous in its idealism。 Perhaps no current eve Granted The Net Delusion is almost a decade old now， its relevance has really come into its own in the past two years where the US has had a kind of social media comeuppance on the grandest scale; i。e。 the obsession with the Russian meddling in the 2016 elections and the dissemination of “fake news” across social channels are part of the core of what Morozov talks about in this book to express why cyber-utopianism is not just naïve arrogance， but dangerous in its idealism。 Perhaps no current event better encapsulates the extremely dangerous elements of free， unfettered social media than the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar。 Facebook is synonymous with the internet in the region and on the platform xenophobic propaganda against Muslims spreads like Staph， crowding out moderating voices， and rotting the minds of its Buddhist-majority population。 To be clear， anti-Muslim propaganda on Facebook did not start the genocide in Myanmar， but it has helped normalize it， made it acceptable， if not noble to the general populace。I love a cynic， especially one so effective at his arguments and Morozov is just that as he systematically exposes the flawed philosophy and politics of internet-centrism and cyber-utopianism， showing how our liberal democratic society likes to see a reflection of ourselves in other nations， and by doing so， blind ourselves to weaknesses in a system， and often blind ourselves to the reality of on-the-ground movements and needs in regional fights for liberty and civil rights from oppressive regimes。 Being a book from 2011， Morozov returns again and again to the “Twitter Revolution” in Iran in 2009， which， in the West， was portrayed as the paragon of the democratizing power of internet freedom。 The reality was， as the West was navel-gazing about how Twitter empowered a movement， American social media， at most， merely amplified the news to the West while providing an authoritarian regime with photos of dissidents， names， locations， etc。 that could （and were） then used to crush resistance。Perhaps one of the more alarming parts of this book was on state censorship。 Morozov talks about the ways we live in algorithms。 Sometimes referred to as “filter bubbles，” companies like Google aggregate vast amounts of data about our online behaviors to more effectively sell us stuff， show us things we might like。 In essence， your personal tastes live as algorithms on server farms across this globe， being utilized for capitalistic gains。 We think of it in terms of exposure: a machine learns our behavior to get us to look at more stuff—or， rather， buy more stuff。 But what if a state decided to use machine learning to do the inverse？ Selective， targeted censorship。 While state-wide censorship is easy to pinpoint， attack and circumvent by dissidents with the technical knowhow， algorithmic censorship becomes， in essence， invisible as censorship becomes a bubble specific to a targeted individual。 It’s a nightmare vision of where our own liberal democracy could go if regulation goes the wrong way， and authoritarianism’s grip strengthens over our institutions。While Morozov’s argument through the book is compelling， he shies away from making any kind of suggestions on ways to move forward with regard to politicking and regulating， critical thinking， or capitalistic mechanisms that could step in as a corrective to the utopianism of the technologic revolution we live in。 For all it’s bluster， he doesn’t quite get to identifying a root cause to this utopian idealism。 But， perhaps， he doesn’t have to as we’re now seeing shifting attitudes in the choppy wake of a sham election in our own democratic safe-haven， where our own tools of democratization have been turned against us。 Now that we stare down the barrel of that social media gun， I wonder if we’ll make reasonable regulatory moves。 Or if we’ll turn a blind eye to this Russian Roulette。 。。。more

James Mersol ，

I wouldn't call this book life-changing or worldview-shaping， but as a 19-year old who believed that the Internet would make everything better， I was glad to come across this book when I was a freshman in college， and I still mention parts of it from time to time。 I wouldn't call this book life-changing or worldview-shaping， but as a 19-year old who believed that the Internet would make everything better， I was glad to come across this book when I was a freshman in college， and I still mention parts of it from time to time。 。。。more

Meghan Pfister ，

Interesting read and very relevant to what is happening in the cyber world today。 Morozov wrote this book in 2011 and I would be curious to see what he had to say about last year's election and the way in which the Internet has changed in the past 7 years。 Interesting read and very relevant to what is happening in the cyber world today。 Morozov wrote this book in 2011 and I would be curious to see what he had to say about last year's election and the way in which the Internet has changed in the past 7 years。 。。。more

Tara ，

This is a book I just picked up at randomI actually Love it！The Net Delusion exposes the not so safe parts of the internet， and there are many。 You'll learn much from reading this， know more about the world， and feel a bit tricked。 Sneaky Governments。。。。 This is a book I just picked up at randomI actually Love it！The Net Delusion exposes the not so safe parts of the internet， and there are many。 You'll learn much from reading this， know more about the world， and feel a bit tricked。 Sneaky Governments。。。。 。。。more

Ilias Bartolini ，

I became curious of reading this book after watching Evgeny TED talk on the same topic: http://www。ted。com/talks/evgeny_moroz。。。 I usually collect a "small set" of important quotes to summarise each book I read。。。 for this one I have a "huge set" :） Extraordinary book for its clarity and the rational approach that uses to deconstruct many of the beliefs of Internet-centrism and cyber-utopianism finding their flaws。 In few spots I think Evgeny point of view is a bit biased on his side but on the I became curious of reading this book after watching Evgeny TED talk on the same topic: http://www。ted。com/talks/evgeny_moroz。。。 I usually collect a "small set" of important quotes to summarise each book I read。。。 for this one I have a "huge set" :） Extraordinary book for its clarity and the rational approach that uses to deconstruct many of the beliefs of Internet-centrism and cyber-utopianism finding their flaws。 In few spots I think Evgeny point of view is a bit biased on his side but on the majority of the topics is a book that really changed my assumptions and my point of view。 I also recommend reading the afterword the Evgeny has published recently: http://www。scribd。com/doc/85936832/Af。。。 5th star is not achieved only because it may become a bit boring to read in some chapters。。。 but overall is very recommended ！！ 。。。here are 3 quotes from the book introduction: "The idea that the Internet favours the oppressed rather than the oppressor is marred by what I call cyber-utopianism: a naïve belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside" "Internet-centrism is a highly disorienting drug; it ignores context and entraps policymakers into believing that they have a useful and powerful ally on their side。 Pernicious tendency to place Internet technologies before the environment in which they operate。" "To salvage the Internet’s promise to aid the fight against authoritarianism， those of us in the West who still care about the future of democracy will need to ditch both cyber-utopianism and Internet-centrism。 Currently， we start with a flawed set of assumptions （cyber-utopianism） and act on them using a flawed， even crippled， methodology （Internet-centrism）" If you want to understand why。。。 buy and read the rest of this book :） 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0