The Future: In Whose Hands?

William Gibson and Tim Wu, authors of two of the most thought-provoking books that I have ever read, are similar in that they both have visions of the future regarding technology and how the world as we know it will change as technology changes. That, however, is where their similarities end. 

Gibson’s groundbreaking (and mind-boggling) cyberpunk novel, Neuromancer, provides a dark and, in my opinion, very unrealistic perception of a world in which AIs have the ability to control humans and cyberspace is an actual “space”. 

Wu, on the other hand, and his lengthy, intimidating book, The Master Switch, provides a vision of the future which is backed up by historical evidence and case study examples of the effects of technological power falling into the wrong hands. 

There is little to no intersection of ideas between these two intellectuals or their literary works, but reading both Neuromancer and The Master Switch was an eye-opening experience to say the least. However, I feel that the fact that I struggled with Gibson significantly more than Wu had a lot to do with the immense amount of evidence that Neuromancer lacked. Blame it on my high school and college experiences, but I now find it hard to consider of a piece of writing credible without supporting evidence. In this way, I, without a doubt, believe that Wu’s ideas and hopes for the future are more realistic than Gibson’s, in my opinion, inconceivable notions of cyberspace.

The aspect of Gibson’s Neuromancer that I struggled with the most was the lack of present government in the world of Case, Molly and Armitage. Government is not mentioned once in the piece of work, and it appears that “megacorporations” have taken the role of oppressive dictatorships who have the ability to take away one’s rights and skills without a second thought. This futuristic anarchy is more of an extreme projection of the power of corporations than a reasonable vision of the future. 

There are, however, some historical examples of technological companies whose questionable relationships with the government resembled a child exerting more power than a parent. This relationship is significantly less extreme than that which Gibson describes in Neuromancer, but may have been the inspiration for his work. The longest running and most questionable of these relationships was that of the government with the largest monopoly the United States has seen - AT&T. 

The Bell monopoly had been a part of American history since its inception in the late 1800s. When the corporation first began to gain power, it is unlikely that anyone could have imagined the effect that it would have on this nation. For example, towards the end of World War II, prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, President Harry S. Truman enlisted AT&T to perform an unusual task: to overlook the top-secret Sandia National Laboratories. This New Mexico-based government operation was “to extend the basic work of the Manhattan Project into more sophisticated weapons development” and to “serve as the ‘steward’ of the United States’ nuclear arsenal” (Wu 159). Truman’s decision to appoint AT&T to oversee this important and top secret operation was unusual and unorthodox, to say the least. However, as Wu writes, “no other arrangement more clearly bespeaks the trust and intimacy that existed for decades between the U.S. government and the nation’s great communications empire than the privilege enjoyed by the authorized telephone monopoly” (159). 

AT&T: Protecting your nation

Additionally, Wu describes AT&T’s continued involvement in United States operations during the Cold War. Their contributions included building “a system of towers across the top of Canada and Alaska designed to warn of approaching ICBMs, a secret radio network to provide communications for Air Force One, and at least sixty hardened and underground bunkers housing emergency equipment” (159). The corporation’s intimate relationship with the government definitely gave AT&T the upper hand, as “the Defense Department would intervene forcefully to prevent the company’s breakup by antitrust suit in 1956, citing a ‘hazard to national security’” (160). 

Although the relationship between AT&T and the United States government is frightening in hindsight, it is nothing compared to the world that Gibson imagined and described in Neuromancer. I disagree with his vision of the inevitability lack of government intervention in the technological and innovative world. I believe that it is actually because of Gibson, and those like him, that our world will never become what he fears. The warnings found in Neuromancer, in fact, cause people to be more cautious when corporations approach the amount of power and influence that Gibson describes. Because we have experienced how much of an effect a single powerful corporation can have on a nation’s government, as we saw with AT&T and the U.S. government, I think that we will be even more vigilant in the future. 

I believe that Tim Wu has a much more realistic approach and vision of the future and government-corporation relationships. After presenting numerous historical examples of, what he refers to as, “the Cycle” of technology empires and their individual rises and falls, he presents his proposition for the future: the Separations Principle. 

The Separations Principle, in essence, states that the only way for information and technology to remain free and open is for complete and total separation between the government and corporations providing services. Wu’s “constitutional approach to the information economy” is, in my opinion, a practical and attainable aspiration for the future of the United States’ relationship with the information industry (304). Wu describes his principle as “the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy” (304). Wu’s world is one in which “those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access [would] be kept apart from one another” and “the government also keep[s] its distance and [does] not intervene in the market to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major functions of an information industry” (304). 

I think that Wu’s vision of the future is much more appealing than Gibson’s because there are so many examples in American history which reflect the need for his Separations Principle. Examples of the issues with corporations having close relationships with the government can be found in nearly every information industry; radio, television, telephony and, most recently, the Internet. In all of these examples, it has been more economically favorable for the government to stay out of the corporate world. Government involvement not only hinders the natural state of competition, but also eliminates the potential for growth in smaller companies, two essential parts of the economic cycle. As Wu writes, “[s]uch interference...is ultimately destructive of both a free society and the healthy growth of an information economy or any other kind” (304). 

Wu’s comparison of the Separations Principle to the United States Constitution also helps to add validity to his argument. By describing the parallels between the Separations Principle and separation of church and state, as well as separation of powers, Wu appeals to the reader’s patriotic nature, thus causing them to see the positive aspects of his ideas. 

Future of information industries?

He writes, for example, “...like the separation of powers, the Separations Principle accepts in advance that some of the benefits of concentration and unified action will be sacrificed, even in ways that seem painful or costly” (305). This aspect of the Separations Principle would probably be the most difficult for society and corporations to accept, as society would not want to give up potential goods and services provided by corporations and corporations would not want to give up the potential profits which those goods and services would provide them. Additionally, corporations which already have close relationships with the government would, most likely, not be willing to give up the benefits which their connections bring them. 

In this way, the Separations Principle may be a bit unrealistic, though, in my opinion, more plausible than the world found in Neuromancer. The future that Wu envisions is one filled with hope and equality, which Gibson’s dark and cynical future is one which, to be honest, is quite frightening. Perhaps my optimism and confidence in the future of society is a reason why I am more inclined to support Wu’s vision rather than Gibson’s. Overall, however, when I picture the future of information industries, based on events which have occurred in the past, my view is closer to that of Wu’s than that of Gibson. 

Works Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010