Quotes: Silicon Snake Oil

While browsing the neighbourhood book library, I can across this little number:

I gotta say: I love this book. Written in the mid 1990’s, when the internet was just really starting to make it to homes in North America and everyone was talking about how great it would be, Clifford Stoll goes on a rant about how it won’t be all that. In certain sections you can’t help but think “this guy is completely wrong.” And not just a little wrong, things happened almost the exact opposite of what he says. But other things in the book, especially about how people speak and interact online, are still valid observations today. It’s a fun blend of being both dated and accurate.

I don’t mean this as a criticism of Cliff Stoll, actually in true geeky fashion, he is his own critic and even in the book:

Page 12: So discount some of my comments as the grinching of an old grackle, directed to a nebulous online community. Write off others as challenges to the technicians building the next incarnation of the Internet. And dismiss the rest as misguided rant from a scoffer.

Perhaps I like the book because I too have many hesitations about technology and the mix of good and bad it brings and I need to remind myself to pause and consider I could be wrong. I guess the book makes me want to meet Cliff someday and hear more of his thoughts on how technology has progress or not progressed. This post is mostly my favourite quotes from the book and a few reflections of my own.

For reference, I’m using the April 1995 first edition hard cover book from Doubleday publishing. Your page numbers may vary.

Intelligent Content Filtering

Cliff, even in 1995, is feeling like he’s “drinking from a firehose” of information. The software makers were reacting by adding in content filtering (and even “smart” content filtering):

Page 97: These [content] filters might be nice, except that few computer systems give you such abilities. I’ve long heard promises that expert systems can solve this problem. By watching my actions, an intelligent agent will learn my preferences and needs. Hardly. I can’t imagine someone whose daily tasks and preferences are so simple that they could be predicted by software. The most advanced software might serve as the crudest of gatekeepers but I doubt these can tell me which letters I’ll find most interesting.

This cracks me up. In 2024, every website has some form of algorithm showing you content they think you want to see - even if only ads. Do they always get it right? No, probably not, but I think we’ve all become a little weary of how much computers try to find out about us and “help us”. I wonder if a case could be made that Cliff is right here? Remember that, before Microsoft Word had a ribbon, they would hide and show items they thought you wanted. It was a disaster and goes to show that sometimes computer “intelligence” just gets it hilariously wrong (by the way, Microsoft published a great video about the development of the ribbon).

Toxic Online Discourse

This is one of those instances where, I think, Cliff hit the nail on the head:

Page 26: Since the networks rely on the written word, you’d expect a rebirth of reading and writing… But instead of an Internet-inspired, renaissance, mediocre writing and poorly thought-out arguments roll into my modem.

Page 32: Online debates of tough issues are often polarized by messages taking extreme positions. It’s a great medium for trivia and hobbies, but not the place for reasoned, relfective judgement. Surprisingly often, discussions degenerate into acrimony, insults, and flames.

Page 33: Since readers often skip arguments that take up more than a screenful, electronic meetings simplify complex issues. This encourages short, simple questions, and equally concise replies. Just as television gives us sound bites, the online interview provides one-line answers.

It turns out online discussion forums are the same in 2024 as they were in 1995. Wouldn’t it be nice to say that, in 30 years, online discussions are nuanced and thoughtful and people are respected? I hope I’m wrong but I would predict that in 2050 our online discussions will still be toxic.

Privacy and Data

Cliff, and the online community at the time, had valid concerns about privacy and data that turned out to be accurate:

Page 34: Privacy’s a serious concern of network activists — they know how easy it is for institutions to collect massive amounts of data about each of us. Not just Big Brother, either. Businesses, junk mailers, and politicians all want that information. What’s collected abut us? Our political party affiliation is public record. Some grocery stores keep tabs on what we purchase. Mail order businesses often save records of phone calls - incoming caller ID tells them who’s on the line even before they pick up the phone. To speed up highway traffic, states are introducing automated care identification systems — a computer remembers every time a care crosses a toll bridge and sends a monthly bill. Individually, each of these droplets of data isn’t much of a threat. Collectively, though, the entire ocean becomes a serious threat to anonymity and privacy within our society.

Sounds about right. Thanks to Snowden, Facebook, and many others, we are painfully aware that A LOT of information is collected about us. We probably still can’t grasp the scale of it but at least the general public has some awareness now.

Unfortunately, Cliff doesn’t stop while he’s ahead.

Page 36: I’m not so worried. Today, we’re protected against this kind of database correlation by deep incompatibilities between different computers systems It’s darned difficult to compare information form multiple sources, because databases are laid out in bizarre ways… Also plenty of information out there is simply stale…

So I suspect Big Brother won’t have an easy time tracing us. Many important computers will forever be off-net. Most have such weird data structures that it’s just not worth the effort to correlate with other databases. And untrustworthy data pervades the system. Our privacy will be protected, as it always has been, by simple obscurity and thigh cost of uncovering information about us.

Perhaps Cliff didn’t consider the lengths that people will go in the name of greed. The “security through obscurity” argument doesn’t apply when someone sees an opportunity to make money.

Urgency and Distraction

Another thing we are aware of now is how computers (and especially our phones) distract us. We know the computer is demanding our attention but we still give in. I’m impressed that Cliff saw this, even in 1995, but how much more true is it now with websites, mobile app notifications, and ads fighting desperately for our eyes and wallets?

Page 166: A little icon blinks whenever a message arrives in my computer… “Open me now,” the message tells us. The same blinking icon announces a letter from one of my sisters, an invitation to a party, and a general announcement that time sheets are due today… The Internet propagates a sense of urgency. Writers once gave me a week to answer a letter. Today, if I don’t reply within a couple of days, they’ll ping me again.

I’m one of those people who turns off pretty much all notifications from my phone. I’m happy to go hours without looking at my phone or my email. I’m glad Cliff was pointing this out. Mainstream media is also pointing this out.

Fake Friendships

A grad school friend joked that “40 facebook friends is equivalent to one real friend.” Clifford Stole said something similar about online friends:

Page 24: I’m talking with strangers [on AOL], without actually meeting them. I might be communicating with a teenager down the block or a retiree across the continent. And when you do meet someone in person, it’s awkward. Perhaps reality will match your expectations, but there’s far more to a relationship than can be discovered over the screen. Electronic communication is an instantaneous and illusory contact that creates a sense of intimacy without the emotional investment that leads to close friendships. People being people, friendships do occur online, occasionally blossoming into relationships and even marriages. Same thing happens at coffee shops, libraries, synagogues and football games.

Isn’t it true that there is something different about online relationships? It’s not to say you can’t have good friends online, Cliff acknowledges that too, just that there is something shallow, or perhaps impersonal, about them.

Online Addiction

Page 1: (while on vacation) Tonight, twenty letters want replies, three people have invited me to chat over the network, there’s a dozen newsgroup to read, and a volley of files to download. How can I keep up? I see my reflection in the screen and a chill runs down my spine. Even on vacation, I can’t escape the computer network. I take a deep breath and pull the plug.

I find it so easy to disappear online into some activity or other. Hours go by and I haven’t had an real human connection. Perhaps the fake friendships are just too easy or comfortable. Cliff identified this in himself way back then and it rings true, perhaps even more so today, with our ever present phones.

Page 10: I see a wide gulf between the real networks that I use daily and the promised land of information infrastructure. Some without a modem worry that they’re missing an important part of modern living. yet few aspects of daily life require computers, digital networks, or massive connectivity. They’re irrelevant to cooking, driving, visiting, negotiating, eating hiking, dancing, and gossiping. You don’t need a keyboard to bake bread, play touch football, piece a quilt, build a stone wall, recite a poem, or say a prayer. At the other end of the spectrum, I have friends who are online ten or twelve hours a day. They spend a substantial part of their lives answering e-mail, transferring files, playing games, reading net news, and exploring the Internet. They’d take umbrage at the suggestion that they’re missing out on something important — having a rich life. Instead these online addicts point out the importance of networks, communications, and home computers. They see the Internet as both a tool and community, essential to work and home.

I’ve often wondered this during my 15 years in the software business. In a way, I can build anything I want. All that is required is time and thought. But nothing I build is really real. Whatever I build exists inside the computer as a string of 0s and 1s and I can’t reach out and touch it or even make sense of it without the computer. I can interact with it via keyboard and screen but it’s not like a garden or a tree or the sea breeze. Software has an impact on the world, for sure, but there is something artificial about it.

Boy is it addictive though. It’s easy to lose myself in the freedom of what I can build or find online. These paragraphs are good reminder to close the laptop regularly and balance what I do online with what I can do in the real world.

Information Overload

Page 219: While skimming [usenet] messages, you’re aware of the vast amount of information passing before your eyes. Charles Kuralt, retired CBS News correspondent, said, “Thanks to the interstate highway system, it’s possible to travel across the country without seeing anything. I wonder if the information superhighway will offer a corollary - a dulling impact on our cerebral cortex.

We have access to so much information it’s overwhelming. Cliff makes this point himself several times in the book but he is quoting Charles Kuralt here. Are we dull or numb to how much information we have? Do we just lull ourselves with a stream of content from reddit or youtube or netflix or latest-trendy-website.com?

Information Appliances

This one is… completely wrong:

Page 11: Well, I don’t believe that phone books, newspapers, magazines, or corner video stores will disappear as computer networks spread. Nor do I think that my telephone will merge with my computer, to become some sort of information appliance.

When was the last time you looked up a number a phone book? Ha, no, you turned to your merged computer-telephone. Magazines? Maybe at the dentist office. Newspaper? Corner video store? Comical. Do we really need a voice controlled microwave? Does our washer/dryer, stove, or fridge really need wifi or some half-baked mobile app?

On a more real note, perhaps we have lost something by converting our magazines and newspapers to digital. Stuart McLean wrote a neat little essay about how the daily newspaper brought the community and families together because it was something that everyone did. Now, each of us goes off into our own digital silos and we don’t know the same things as the person next to us. It’s nice that everyone can focus on their interests, but perhaps we lose something because we don’t have the shared conversation provided by common daily newspapers. Hmmm.

Final Thought

Hopefully I’ve not violated copyright too much. I find books like this a fascinating glimpse at the past and it is perhaps surprising how relevant some of the observations are today.

If you do find a copy of the book and only read part of it, make sure to treat yourself to the hilarious usenet conversation in chapter 12.5. I can imagine myself reading a very similar discussion on HN and it’s amazing to think people spoke and wrote the same kind of things on the internet 30 years ago.

Perhaps it’s people and 30 years that are the key takeaways from this book. Technology changes and what we can accomplish changes but many things, human things, are still the same. In 30 years of internet use, we haven’t yet found a way to be more civilized and engage in thoughtful conversation. And there are wisecracks out there who will find a way to make me giggle.