He's one of two really relevant critical thinkers on tech and is critical of some of the aspects since literally decades. The other, arguably, being Evgeny Morozov (for a shorter time).

Lanier certainly has the chops, the background and the deliverables to be taken seriously.

I think those guys are super important as a counterweight to the fawning and gushing (in general) tech press and I for one wish that they have far more reach, impact and influence.

There is another critical thinker I recently came across - Adam Greenfield - much better then Morozov IMO. Have a look at his latest book: Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30724899-radical-technol...

I would add Maciej Ceglowski

http://idlewords.com/talks/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Ceg%C5%82owski

We don't need software to socialize.

Some tasks of our life can be taken over by software, but others should stay with us.

Especially with the advent of AI, engineers are racing to automate everything: from suggesting us new friends, new music, with which dresses we look smart, and so on. Automating everything will cause the atrophying of our skills and we will become a bunch of lonely depressed, smartly dressed users with thousands of virtual friends and perfect music playlists that never deviate from our preferred music.

Automation is fine and dandy, but not for everything.

Your response is literally a use of software to socialize. Of course we don't "need" it, but that's a meaningless statement. We don't need computers or electricity either.

The idea that we're all being duped and manipulated into using something we don't need so that we'll view ads is overblown. It's not false, it's just not a new thing and it's not a problem.

Media has been intertwined with market research, ratings, feedback, and advertising since before the electronic age. Advertising platforms have been getting incrementally better at learning what people want, how to push their psychological buttons, and how to retain customers.

There's a tendency to treat social media users as helpless victims of an evil empire who don't realize their personal details are being used to target them for exploitation. People aren't that stupid. They know what they're trading for these great free products we all use.

The fact that ads and news (!) are individually targeted is new, and I'd consider it a huge threat. Decades ago, some news and shows were watched by everyone. There was still plenty of variety to go off in individual directions, but there was a common ground. That is being threatened.

> People aren't that stupid. They know what they're trading for these great free products we all use.

Maybe for most HN readers, but I don't think that is the case for most users.

> People aren't that stupid. They know what they're trading for these great free products we all use.

I would say the average user has no idea what exactly they are trading for.

To some extent yes, but then again, social media is public billboard meets address book. There's nothing in there that fundamentally shouldn't be automated, it's just the sum of those parts that enable a new dimension in social interaction.

Also: we don't need software for most things in life. But we like software, as it usually makes things better.

Is software making us better or lazy?

Is it laziness, or efficient use of time, which could be put to a more productive use? It's a tricky question.

We don't need social media...or software to live happy lives.