This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabub. Peer reviewers: Hthrxlynn, Jameiladudley, KhajadaNeal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

His rallying cry "Down with Cybercrud" is against the centralization of computers such as that performed by IBM at the time, as well as against what he sees as the intentional untruths that "computer people" tell to non-computer people to keep them from understanding computers.

This will need to be explained to newer generations, since they probably aren't aware of what this means or what it entailed, more so with the rise of cloud computing, which is simply a return to centralization, but repackaged under another name to fool and control the consumer. In the context that Nelson is using it, IBM was, in his opinion, responsible for thwarting the needs and the desires of personal computer users, and there is quite a bit of evidence that this was true, although it seems to have more to do with American business practices as a whole, rather than IBM in particular. In other words, even today, the consumer still isn't "King" (or Queen) and often times purchases and uses products that don't best meet their needs. When the manufacturer of such a product is informed of this issue, their standard reply was (and in many cases still is) "it doesn't work that way" or "we can't do that". Some of the most glaring examples I can think of in the last few decades, include Microsoft's late entry (and the resistance of the business community) on the w3 (many engineers thought of the web as a "fad" that would soon disappear) and car manufacturers like Lexus who were still installing analog tape players in their cars in the 2000s, when their customers were repeatedly requesting mp3/iPod ports. Just a few examples of how the business community consistently fails to listen to their customers or take advantage of new trends because they are perceived as too risky. For example, instead of converting to a digital distribution model, the recording industry and Hollywood fought it for more than a decade, unsuccessfully I might add. I think the pattern is clear, although the irony is upsetting. The consumer leads the industry in adapting to technological innovation while industry itself presents the greatest barrier to innovation and progress. By always fighting the consumer and standing in the way of progress, industry is the greatest threat...to itself. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Howard Reingold's "Tools For Thought" is now here: http://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/ I'd change the link myself but I don't want to mess up anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.236.46 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply