I think he makes some very good points about an obsession with objective quantities over more subjective analysis of qualities.
Especially when it comes to literary works, art, and discussions of politics and economics.
I've worked in tech for the last decade so I know from first hand experience that there is plenty of subjectivity in the decision making and design processes.
But at the same time there's an attitude that "if it sells, it's good". Sometimes when I'm in meetings it seems like were selling lowest-common-denominator products on after hours television. Basically just trying to come up with scams instead of trying to build real value.
Furthermore, thinking that web pages and software are the best approaches to "solving the world's problems" definitely lends towards a digital and quantified solution.
From what I've heard at The New Republic they wanted to start using the same sort of metrics that a company like Bleacher Report (which I was the first engineer at) might use.
There's world of a difference between stories about 3rd tier college football teams and the history of intellectual criticism that made The New Republic what it was.
There are certainly plenty of folks in silicon valley who could care less about quality as long as it hits the numbers. It may or may not be the case that the new management at TNR are folks like that -- if it is, that's depressing to say the least.
But there are also plenty of folks in silicon valley creating and empowering new forms of content and thought. Even buzzfeed, everyone's favorite target, has produced some awesome longform work to complement their listicle crap. To say nothing of the Mediums of the world.
To argue, as Wieseltier does, that this first group is indicative of a silicon valley ethos, is where he goes off the rails. By what right does he get to make that claim? Because Google hired Ray Kurzweil?
The most generous interpretation is that he's simply unaware of the humanistic side of the internet.
What worries me is the more likely claim that this stems from a certain form of engineer essentialism -- that technologists are inherently unable to appreciate a work of art or cultural criticism. He himself writes this:
"The processing of information is not the highest aim to which the human spirit can aspire, and neither is competitiveness in a global economy. The character of our society cannot be determined by engineers."
Wieseltier seems to really believe that a bunch of pocket-protectored math geeks have taken over his beloved humanities and are trying to reduce it to a bunch of equations. To do so is, I still find, extremely shallow and deeply insulting.
The most generous interpretation is that he's simply unaware of the humanistic side of the internet.
That humanistic side of the Internet has been drowned out by a sea of dingbats so obsessed with becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg that it is barely perceptible.
I'm an engineer as well as an artist and I got in to this industry for the humanistic side of things. I'm frankly disgusted with how things have been shaping up over the last decade. Our industry is full of callousness and arrogance. To make it worse the economic externalities of their successes are driving out anyone involved with humanities from the cities where this is taking place. It has created the feedback loops that result in the kind of ignorance that he's addressing.
Especially when it comes to literary works, art, and discussions of politics and economics.
I've worked in tech for the last decade so I know from first hand experience that there is plenty of subjectivity in the decision making and design processes.
But at the same time there's an attitude that "if it sells, it's good". Sometimes when I'm in meetings it seems like were selling lowest-common-denominator products on after hours television. Basically just trying to come up with scams instead of trying to build real value.
Furthermore, thinking that web pages and software are the best approaches to "solving the world's problems" definitely lends towards a digital and quantified solution.
From what I've heard at The New Republic they wanted to start using the same sort of metrics that a company like Bleacher Report (which I was the first engineer at) might use.
There's world of a difference between stories about 3rd tier college football teams and the history of intellectual criticism that made The New Republic what it was.