Infocracia: Digitalização e a crise da democracia

by Byung-Chul Han

Die Digitalisierung schreitet unaufhaltsam voran. Wir sind benommen vom Kommunikations- und Informationsrausch. Gleichzeitig spüren wir eine Ohnmacht angesichts des Tsunamis der Information, die deformative, destruktive Kräfte entfaltet. Die Digitalisierung erfasst inzwischen auch den Bereich des Politischen und führt zu massiven Verwerfungen im demokratischen Prozess. Wahlkämpfe als Informationskriege werden mit allen erdenklichen technischen und psychologischen Mitteln geführt. Social Bots, die automatisierten Fake-Accounts in den sozialen Medien, verbreiten Fake News, Hetze und Hass und beeinflussen die politische Meinungsbildung. Troll-Armeen greifen in die Wahlkämpfe ein, indem sie gezielt Desinformation betreiben. Verschwörungstheorien und Propaganda beherrschen die politische Debatte. Mittels digitaler Psychometrie und Psychopolitik wird versucht, das Wahlverhalten unter Umgehung bewusster Entscheidung zu beeinflussen. Byung-Chul Hans neuer Essay beschreibt die heutige Krise der Demokratie, indem er sie auf den digitalen Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit zurückführt. Han gibt der Krise einen Namen: Infokratie und verortet sie im Informationsregime als neue Herrschaftsform.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Technology, Essays, Sociology, Audiobook

80 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2021

About the author

Byung-Chul Han, also spelled Pyŏng-ch'ŏl Han (born 1959 in Seoul), is a German author, cultural theorist, and Professor at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK) in Berlin, Germany.

Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.

In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.

Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.

Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.

Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.

Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.

Reviews

[lectornicolas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Siento que me va a dar algo después de leer este libro de filosofía y análisis social (léase con voz desesperá, mano en pesho y ojos desorbitadamente abiertos).

Byung-Chul Han, surcoreano, reconocido profe filósofo de la U de Artes en Berlín, nos invita a deconstruir la idea placentera y bienechora, de que el acceso mastodóntico que tenemos a la información es algo “positivo” per se. Porque nos olvidamos del exceso de información, la desinformación, la no-tan-real información y de que la información no lo explica todo. De que no somos un conjunto de datos.

El autor plantea lo anterior como “el régimen de la información”. Un nuevo constructo socio-cultural con rasgos evidentemente totalitarios, basada en el paradigma del dataísmo, que utiliza la transparencia a su favor, y que crea filtros burbujas, creando tribus cibernéticas sesgadas que se perciben libres, pero que están irrisoriamente esclavizadas.

La cruda no ficción, analítica al callo, a veces sombría, me da escalofríos. No quiero pensar el pensamiento temerario que me lleva a vislumbrar las vastas consecuencias que un futuro infocrático cibernético tendría en la salud humana. Perdón, la salud de perfiles/usuarios digitales presos de algoritmos basados en inteligencia artificial. ¿Ya está ocurriendo?

Orwell, Huxley y el controversial Trump no estaban tan equivocados después de todo, al hablar del control social con un riguroso manipuleo informacional y de fake news. Las verdades fácticas que antes sostenían cohesionada la comunicación discursiva y la democracia, estarían siendo reemplazadas por bullshiters, una solaz truthiness, una sociedad de la desconfianza, bucles del ego, infoburbujas, sociómetros digitales e influencers que, con total sinvergüenzura, utilizaran su influencia para profundizar el modelo neoliberal.

Si cualquier lectoriwi quiere ampliar la consciencia que creía poseer acerca de sus rrss y el tejemaneje detrás de la info que consume por las pantallas, este librito de 90 páginas puede ayudarte a salir de esa ilusión.

Nuestra visión de mundo avanza inexorablemente, al parecer, moldeada cuidadosamente por la Infocracia que hemos permitido normalizar.

Tip pa leerlo: tranquilidad, date tu tiempo. Me sirvió mucho leer 5-20 páginas al día.

#lectornicolas

[Come Musica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Illuminante. Come tutti i suoi saggi.


“Nell’universo dataista la democrazia lascia il posto a una infocrazia basata sui dati, che si cura di ottimizzare lo scambio di informazioni. La sfera del discorso pubblico è sostituita dall’analisi dei dati per mezzo dell’Intelligenza Artificiale, il che significa la fine della democrazia.”

Il filosofo Byung-chul Han mette in allarme il lettore riguardo l’enorme mole di dati che rilasciamo attraverso l’uso dei nostri dispositivi: questo dati ci schedano e ci rendono sempre più controllati da chi detiene tali tali.

Un altro pericolo del predominio dell’infocrazia è legato alla lenta fine della democrazia, con la conseguente morte del discorso.

“La parola latina discursus significa «andare in giro». Attraverso l’altro siamo positivamente distolti, nel discorso, dalla nostra convinzione. Soltanto la voce dell’altro conferisce alla mia espressione, alla mia opinione una qualità discorsiva. Nell’agire comunicativo devo rappresentarmi la possibilità che la mia espressione venga messa in questione dall’altro. Una espressione priva di qualsiasi punto interrogativo non ha carattere discorsivo.”

“L’odierna crisi dell’agire comunicativo può essere ricondotta al meta-livello per cui l’altro è in sparizione. La scomparsa dell’altro implica la fine del discorso perché sottrae all’opinione la razionalità comunicativa.”

Quello che manca alla nostra epoca non è la raccolta dei dati, quanto la loro narrazione: è quest’ultima che sta andando scomparendo.
Basti pensare al bollettino rilasciato ogni pomeriggio dalla protezione civile durante la pandemia: tanti dati (malati, guariti, morti) riguardo al Sars-Cov-2, senza alcuna narrazione

“La fine delle grandi narrazioni, che inaugura la postmodernità, si completa nella società dell’informazione. Le narrazioni degradano a informazioni. L’informazione è la controfigura della narrazione. I Big Data sono l’opposto della grande narrazione. I Big Data non raccontano. In francese «digitale» si dice numerique. Il numerico e il narrativo, il conteggiabile e il raccontabile appartengono a due ordini fondamentalmente diversi.”

Verso quale futuro ci stiamo dirigendo?

“Mentre pensiamo di essere liberi, oggi siamo intrappolati in una caverna digitale. Siamo incatenati allo schermo digitale. I prigionieri della caverna platonica sono inebriati da immagini mitico-narrative. La caverna digitale, invece, ci tiene intrappolati nelle informazioni. La luce della verità è completamente spenta. Non c’è affatto un esterno rispetto alla caverna delle informazioni. Il rumore delle informazioni offusca i contorni dell’essere. La verità non fa rumore.
La verità ha una temporalità completamente diversa dalle informazioni. Mentre le informazioni hanno un margine di attualità molto ristretto, la verità è caratterizzata dalla durata. Cosí essa stabilizza la vita. Hannah Arendt sottolinea esplicitamente il significato esistenziale della verità. La verità ci dà un appiglio. «È la terra sulla quale stiamo e il cielo che si stende sopra di noi».”

A noi la scelta.

[Julián Alvarez · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had big expectations on this book, giving Han's renown and the relevance of this topic. "Disappointment" is an enormous understatement to express what i felt reading this book. Although some of Han's thoughts on the matter are extremely relevant and valuable, since its a reality that today's data-driven world puts our democracies in danger, the message that Han sends is one of panic and dismay. It almost suggest that we have nothing to do, that we have to surrender to the dangers of technology instead of fighting for a human-driven technology.

I find this pessimism of Han extremely opportunistic and editorial-designed. It is easy to panic the people, it's hard to think about feasible solutions (or at least reflect on possible ways to build a feasible solution). Maybe this book is worth a while, since is short and easy to read, but Han's ignorance on the matter is so evident that i could be annoying for some people.

[Garrigan Stafford · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is pure aesthetic of analysis with little to no meat. All fluff and aphoristic language with nothing to back it up.

For context, I mostly agree with the ideas presented. That information has created a new form of capitalism and control. Hence I wanted to read some analysis on that new form of control. However here I found none. The book is merely a list of claims spiced up to sound like an anarchist’s edgy slam poem for open mic night.

For example Han compares how the information society favors openness instead of isolation which a disciplinary uses. An interesting observation that feels correct. There is no concrete examples or evidence provided but sure let’s run with it as it seems fairly obvious of society. Then we go to the conclusion that the surveillance comes from openness and therefore domination is complete when freedom and surveillance coincide.

Ok not a bad conclusion but there is nothing in the middle. What does this new form of domination look like compared the domination of Foucault? Did Han not think it would be an interesting question to talk about the nature and difference in the domination of itself? Also does freedom necessarily coincide with surveillance in the modern age? There are real world examples of technology and openness being used directly against surveillance. Are these not ideas that Han thought could be useful to interrogate? The relationship between freedom, surveillance, technology, information and capitalism is a rich subject with many possible concrete examples that could take a whole chapter to properly interrogate. Instead Han provided a paragraph long claim with little analysis to back it up.

This type of writing then requires the reader to come in with a lot of agreeing assumptions to follow the argument, which at that point, are you actually learning anything? You already agree. The observations
are claims that you have to agree with before reading the book. What information did you really learn?

[Mauricio Prado Jaimes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Primero lo bueno. Para quien no conoce nada de lo que se ha escrito sobre redes sociales, digitalidad, algoritmos, Big data, inteligencia artificial, fake news y demás, quizá este es el libro idóneo. Con una gran capacidad de síntesis, aborda todos estos temas y da un buen panorama sobre todo lo que hay de forma accesible para el público general. Para trabajar con adolescentes creo que funcionaría muy bien.

Si ya se conoce un poco más de todo esto, hay poco nuevo, salvo los términos que propone para nombrar algunos fenómenos (infocracia, dataistas, etc.). Da la sensación de que no reconoce lo suficiente las influencias de lo que ya se ha escrito y tira netas como si fuera la primera vez que se dicen.

Además, abundan juicios apocalípticos del estilo:
"Los enjambres digitales no forman un colectivo responsable y políticamente activo. Los followers, los nuevos súbditos de los medios sociales, se dejan amaestrar por sus inteligentes influencers para consumirse en ganado consumista. Han sido despolitizados [...] Al publicar información privada en un escaparate móvil, acelera la desintegración de la esfera pública. Produce zombis del consumo y de la comunicación, en lugar de ciudadanos capacitados [...]
Ningún público político puede formarse a partir de influencers y followers [...] no son capaces de acción política alguna" (pp. 21- 22). Hay bastantes pruebas de que esto es falso y muestra un juicio de valor muy severo que evidencia que no se ha metido a ver realmente todo lo que pasa en las redes.

Después de leer La sociedad del cansancio y ahora Infocracia, no se me quita la sensación de estar siendo estafado cuando leo Byung-Chul Han. Dicho esto, lo seguiré leyendo.

[Agustin Holgado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Donde está la verdad

Nos deja un mundo de inestabilidad existencial, consecuencia de la información, del manejo de los datos, de la inteligencia artificial. La gran mentira es más poderosa que muchas verdades, en lo que se afirmó Hitler. Por lo tanto, la verdad es peligrosa y es revolucionaria. Corresponde el libro a un análisis filosófico muy moderno.

[Elena · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" (T. S. Eliot)

The main claim of this work is that the unchecked development of the information economy has cemented a societal infrastructure that is radically at odds with the culture, society and mode of political organization that was once liberal democracy. As we shift away from old-school democracy and its social and cultural institutions, we are entering a new regime Han calls Infocracy. The characteristic feature of Infocracy is the atomization - one might say pulverization - of human life at all levels (from the personal, interpersonal, societal, political, economic, and cultural) into bits of information which form complex emergent patterns as those bits get shuffled around networks of dizzying complexity.

This pulverization has sweeping consequences for every level of human life, according to Han. As he sees it, the biggest victims are key cultural and social constructs that make possible a functioning democracy. Chief among these constructs is the Enlightenment ideal of the autonomous rational subject, who freely supports democracy by entering into reasoned debates with other such individual subjects. This once-autonomous individual, who once participated in political systems by means of reasoned communication with others, now increasingly tends to dissolve into a dizzyingly impersonal mass of information as she voluntarily interacts with "smart" gadgets throughout the course of her day (gadgets that can potentially record each of her movements, from her heart rate fluctuations to the direction of her attention as she flits her cursor across webpages). According to Han, our thirst for ever more precise information that quantifies every nook and cranny of our lives ultimately enslaves us since it leads to the dissolution of the remaining bastion of freedom: the private sphere. Due to the influx of "smart" gadgets connecting us to the world wide web at our most personal moments (e.g. during a walk in nature with loved ones), the private sphere has become public information.

I actually wish Han had developed with greater rigour his analysis into how our intensified reliance on digital, smart technologies in our efforts to constructs our sense of self leads to a pulverization of the sense of a coherent self with a coherent, individual worldview. When we interact with personalized algorithms, at a superficial glance, we may seem to ourselves to be opening greater platforms for individual expression by creating a more personalized info "feed." In fact, what we're actually doing is we are training algorithms to better train us (and others statistically like us in their behaviours). We are training them to be better at capturing and fracturing our attention and at more effectively dissolving our remaining sense of individual agency.

Moreover, through our continued interaction in this virtual space, we contribute to the creation of a virtual eidolon of ourselves. We become progressively invested in feeding, shaping and sustaining this virtual eidolon. Over time, it takes on an eerie life of its own. To the degree that we are invested in nurturing this eidolon, we become progressively more uprooted from the individual sources of our identity. Increasingly, the soft skills that lead to success in society depend not on how you present yourself as a flesh-and-blood individual, but rather on how good you are at crafting, propagating and marketing this virtual eidolon of yourself in the Infosphere.

Through all this, the parameters of our agency are completely transformed, as is our sense of identity, split, as it increasingly is, between the increasingly alienated flesh-and-blood subject, and her virtual self-construct into which more and more of her attention and energy is increasingly poured and which filters her moment-to-moment interactions with the world. The upshot is that you are never simply looking at the budding spring flowers with your own eyes any more, even when you are alone, trying to get away from it all while walking through the woods. Instead, you are always looking at those tender shoots through the eyes of your virtual eidolon, never failing to quantify to yourself the value your percept of the flower could have if it were transformed into a bit of information that can be used as currency in the Infosphere, that is, as something that can attract "shares" and "likes." Thus, you bring the Infosphere into the woods with you, and the woods become swallowed up by the Infocracy. And there is a new kind of suffering, uprooting, alienation, and a new gnawing spiritual emptiness, that become rather commonplace experiences as we routinely reduce ourselves, what we perceive, and our relations to the social, natural and cultural worlds to information. We live and suffer through these experiences without being able to put words to them or to understand them.

Not only is there, in practice, no more distinction between private and public spaces, but strictly speaking we cannot speak of either as a coherent "space" anymore. The Infosphere is a new kind of habitat for the human animal, one unlike any other we've known. This poses some serious psychological challenges for us to contend with, since the extent to which our increasing addiction to virtual spaces and virtual communities is conducive to well-being (or else brings psychological harm) is not yet fully known. But Han points out that, perhaps even more alarmingly, this change of habitat also poses disturbing social, cultural, and political challenges for us. I mentioned above the dissolution of the social infrastructure that supports democracy. Han has a truly excellent discussion of how the social practice of reasoned argument that lies at the basis of democracy is quickly deteriorating once it migrates to the Infosphere.

He identifies as crucial contributors to this accelerating deterioration certain prophets of the new Infocratic, post-rational era who proclaim that argument - as a tool that individuals use to arrive at the truth of things by engaging in a clash of individual perspectives - is made obsolete by Big Data. The half-baked idea of these prophets of the Infocracy is that an AI that can find patterns of breathtaking complexity on the basis of heaps of information about human behaviour, ranging from the most minute rates of eye saccades all the way to the collective conditions for political polarization, has no need for arguments. Probabilistic pattern-recognition on the basis of enormous enough quantities of information (more than most of us can even imagine holding within our purview in a lifetime) can generate much more accurate predictions about how to restructure society "for the best of all." A consequentialist ethics' wet dream come true, I suppose.

The crucial claim the prophet of the Infocracy makes, and which Han treats with (to my mind) appropriate scorn, is that in this way, Big Data replaces the need for reasoned argument, debate, such that even political parties and platforms start to seem like relics from the distant past. Complex information-processing technologies have made individual reasoning obsolete. And given the tight connection between knowledge (or information, rather, since knowledge and wisdom are also going the way of the dodo, if Han is right) and power, this has sweeping political consequences. If Han is right, argument, the tool that finite, individual minds use to test their personal perspectives of what matters against one another in order to arrive at an intersubjectively-binding view of the truth, is tacitly and increasingly being replaced with impersonal statistical pattern-recognition as the basis for decision making. Or maybe it's not even appropriate to speak of "decision"-making anymore. And it's all happening more quickly than we can recognize what is going on, never mind figuring out a means of responding intelligently.

Han is right to suggest that understanding how the Infocracy is restructuring the fundamental context within which we relate to ourselves, one another, and the environment is a precondition for responding intelligently to surface manifestations of this shift that we are witnessing around us (e.g. the alliance between technocrats and the far right, the rise of surveillance capitalism, social media as a tool for the formation of echo chambers, etc). He is also right to point out that since mere information knows nothing of the higher-level meaningful unities in terms of which we make sense of ourselves and our societies (unities like the notion of the individual and the community as a cultural totality), we cannot expect a political order increasingly based on information-processing to be one in which we can feel at home.

However, my biggest beef with this work is that it consists of a string of aphoristic assertions that are too often without rigorous argumentative support. Han present some astute (and very important) observations, but does not back them up with rigorous argumentative support. This is a bit ironic, given the content of the book.

[Ferda Nihat Koksoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Algoritmalar ve yapay zekâ kullanılarak enformasyonun ve işlenmesinin toplumsal, ekonomik ve politik süreçler üzerinde belirleyici bir etkiye sahip olduğu bir tahakküm biçimine enformasyon rejimi diyoruz. Disiplin rejiminin aksine, sömürülen bedenler ve enerjiler değil, enformasyon ve verilerdir. Güç/iktidar elde etmenin belirleyici faktörü, üretim araçlarına sahip olmak değil, psikopolitik izleme, davranış kontrolü ve tahmin için kullanılan enformasyonlara erişimdir. Enformasyon rejimi, gözetim kapitalizmine dönüşen ve insanları veriye ve tüketim hayvanına indirgeyen enformasyon kapitalizmiyle bağlantılıdır."

"Kâbe'nin tam tersi görünümde olan New York'taki Apple'ın cam küpü özgürlük ve sınırsız iletişim telkin eder, ancak fiilen enformasyonun acımasız tahakkümünün cisimleşmiş hâlidir. Enformasyon rejimi insanları tamamen şeffaf kılar. Tahakkümün kendisi ise asla şeffaf değildir. Şeffaflık, görünürlükten kaçınan bir sürecin ön yüzüdür. Şeffaflığın kendisi şeffaf değildir. Arka yüzü vardır. Şeffaflığın makine dairesi karanlıktır."

"YouTube ve Instagram'daki influencerlar neoliberal iktidar tekniğini kullanır; genç takipçiler, influencerların sahnelediği günlük yaşamlarında tükettiklerini iddia ettikleri ürünleri satın alarak birer mürit olarak onların hayatına iştirak ederler. Böylelikle takipçiler bir dijital şükran ayinine katılırlar. Sosyal medya bir kilise gibidir: Like âmin demektir. Paylaşmak birliktir. Tüketmek kurtuluştur."

"Hayatlarımız, psikopolitik davranış denetimine dayalı olarak tamamen kayıt altına alınırken özgür olduğumuzu hayal ederiz. Neoliberal enformasyon rejiminde iktidarın işleyişini sağlayan, kalıcı gözetimin farkındalığı değil, hissedilen özgürlüktür. Big Brother'ın dokunulmaz tele-ekranının aksine, akıllı dokunmatik ekran her şeyi kullanılabilir ve tüketilebilir hâle getirir. Böylelikle "parmak ucu özgürlüğü" yanılsamasını yaratır. Enformasyon rejiminde özgür olmak; eylemde bulunmak değil, tıklamak, beğenmek ve paylaşmak anlamına gelir. Dolayısıyla neredeyse hiç direnç yoktur. Devrimden korkulmasına gerek yoktur. Parmaklar, kendi başlarına eyleme geçme yetisine sahip değildir. Onlar sadece tüketici tercihinin bir organıdır. Tüketim ve devrim birbirini dışlar."

"Enformasyon rejiminin dataizmi totaliter özellikler gösterir. Bütüncül bilgiyi amaçlar. Ancak veriye dayalı bütüncül bilgi, ideolojik anlatıyla (narration) değil, bilakis sadece algoritmik işlemle elde edilir. Dataizm, olan ve olacak olan her şeyi hesaplamak ister. Anlatılar yerini algoritmik sayımlara bırakır. Enformasyon rejimi, anlatıyı tamamen sayısal olanla değiştirir. Algoritmalar, ne kadar zeki olurlarsa olsunlar insan üzerinde ideolojik anlatılar kadar etkili olamazlar.
Dataizm, verili olanın arkasında başka bir gerçeklik resmetmez, çünkü ideolojisiz bir totaliterizmdir; insanları yalnızlaştırır, tecrit eder, tek lideri değil, influencerlarını izler."

"Bilme ve algılama çabasının yerini oyalama işi alıyor. Bunun sonucu, insanın yargı yetisinde hızlı bir çöküştür. Oyalama işi açık bir tehdidi temsil eder: İnsanları ergen haline getirir ya da bir ergin-olmama hâlinde tutar. Ve demokrasinin toplumsal temelini aşındırır. Ölümüne eğleniyoruz." (Neil Postman)

"Enfokrasiyi ve enformasyon rejimindeki demokrasi krizi bilişsel düzeyde başlar. Enformasyonun çok kısa bir güncelliği vardır. Zamansal istikrardan yoksundur çünkü "sürpriz(in) cazibesi"nden beslenir. Zamansal istikrarsızlıktan dolayı algıyı parçalar. Gerçeği/fiili olanı "sürekli güncellik çılgınlığı"na çeker. Enformasyon üzerinde oyalanmak mümkün değildir. Bu da bilişsel sistemi huzursuz eder. Enformasyonun doğasına içkin hızlanma zorlaması, bilgi, deneyim ve kavrama gibi zaman alan, bilişsel pratiklerin bir kenara itilmesine sebep olur."

"Bugün zaman, her düzeyde parçalanmıştır. Hem yaşamı hem de algıyı dengeleyen taşıyıcı zaman mimarileri gözle görülür derecede hızla erozyona uğramaktadır. Enformasyon toplumunun genel kısa vadeli doğası demokrasiye uygun değildir.
Rasyonellik de zaman alan bir yoğunluğa sahiptir, uzun vadeli bir perspektif gerektirir. Anın ötesinde, geçmiş ve geleceğe uzanan refleksiyonlara dayanırlar. Enformasyon toplumunda ise rasyonel davranmak için zamanımız yoktur. İletişimi hızlandırma zorlaması bizi rasyonellikten yoksun bırakır. Zaman baskısı altında zekâya kayarız. Zekânın ise tamamen farklı bir zamansallığı vardır."

"Enformasyon savaşları günümüzde akla gelebilecek her türlü teknik ve psikolojik araçlarla yapılmaktadır. Troll orduları kasıtlı olarak yalan haber ve komplo teorileri yayarak seçim kampanyalarına müdahale ediyor. Sosyal medyadaki otomatik sahte hesaplar olan sosyal botlar (veri alma, işleme, müdahale etme gücündeki robot yazılımlar), kendilerini gerçek insan gibi gösterip tweetler atıyor, beğeniyor, paylaşımlar yapıyor, sahte haberler, nefret içeren yorumlar yayıyor ve böylece siyasi tartışmaları büyük ölçüde çarpıtıyorlar. Araştırmalar, botların küçük bir yüzdelik diliminin fikir iklimini değiştirmek için yeterli olduğunu gösteriyor. Seçmenler farkında olmadan onların etkilerine maruz kalıyor. Bir seçim kampanyası enformasyon savaşı biçimini aldığında, daha iyi argümanlar değil, daha akıllı algoritmalar hâkimiyet kazanır."

"Sahte haberler de enformasyondur ve hızla yayılır (enfodemi). Daha doğrulama süreci başlamadan etkisini gösterir. Enformasyon, hızla hakikatin ötesine geçer, hakikat onu asla yakalayamaz. Bu nedenle, enfodemiye hakikatle karşı koyma girişimi başarısızlığa mahkûmdur. Enfodemi, hakikate karşı dirençlidir."

"Artık önemsiz hale gelmiş Piratenpartei (Korsan Partisi) tarafından vaktiyle fikir oluşturmak ve karar almak için kullanılan bir yazılım olan LiquidFeedback'in ardında yatan düşünce şöyledir:
"Gerçek zamanlı demokrasi (akıllı telefonla katılım), sorumlu bir kolektifin, gelecekte şimdiki kararlarının sonuçlarıyla yüzleşeceğini bildiği bir karar verme ve sürekli değerlendirme zamanı yaratır. Mesafe yaratan temsilin yerini, doğrudan katılımın mevcudiyeti alır. Dijital gerçek zamanlı demokrasi, bir mevcudiyet demokrasisidir; akıllı telefonu, günün her saati, her yerde tartışan bir mobil parlamentoya dönüştürür."

"Dijitalleşmenin ilk günlerinde, geleceğin demokrasisi olacağı hayal edilen gerçek zamanlı demokrasinin tam bir yanılsama olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.
Dijital sürüler, sorumlu, politik olarak etkin bir kolektif oluşturmaz. Sosyal medyanın yeni özneleri olan takipçiler, akıllı influencerlar tarafından eğitilip sağılan tüketici hayvanlar hâline gelmiştir. Siyasetle ilgileri kalmamıştır. Sosyal medyadaki algoritma kontrollü iletişim ne özgür ne de demokratiktir. Yeni bir ergin/reşit olmamaya yol açar. Akıllı telefon mobil bir parlamento değil, bir boyun eğdirme aygıtıdır. Akıllı telefonlar, özel konuların sürekli başkalarına sunulduğu mobil vitrinler olarak hizmet ettiğinden, kamusal alanın parçalanıp dağılmasını hızlandırır. Sorumlu/erginleşmiş vatandaşlar yerine tüketim ve iletişim zombileri yaratır."

Dataist  Hiroki Azuma (2104) :
"21. yüzyıl toplumu aşırı karmaşıktır ve enformasyon teknolojisi sayesinde bu karmaşıklık çok açık bir şekilde görünür hâle gelmiştir. İşlenecek enformasyon, bireylerin 'sınırlı rasyonalitesi'ni aşacak kadar genişlemiştir. Sonuç olarak günlük yaşamda kişilerarası iletişim öylesine felce uğrar ki, Arendt ve Habermas'ın varsayımlarının gerçekliğe uyarlanması çok zorlaşır. Günümüz toplumunda vatandaşlar artık bir tartışmanın başlamasını sağlayacak müşte-rek bir zemine inanmamaktadır. Artık bu tartışmaya aynı topluluğun üyeleri olarak katıldıklarını bile varsayamazlar. Arendt ve Habermas tarafından ideal olarak yüceltilen kamusal alan asla gerçeklik kazanmamıştır."

"Dataistler, yapay zekanın insandan daha iyi bir dinleyici olduklarını bile iddia edebilirler."
Dijital rasyonalite, söylemsel öğrenmenin yerine yapay zekâ ile öğrenmeyi koyar, algoritmalar tartışmaları taklit eder."

"Dataistler, Foucault'un insanın ölümü konusundaki fikri ile hemfikirdir: "İnsan, düşüncemizin arkeolojisinin açıkça gösterdiği gibi yakın tarihli bir icattır. Belki de yakın zamanda sonlanacaktır. O zaman insanın, deniz kıyısında kumdaki yüzü gibi kaybolup gideceğine dair bahse girilebilir." Dalgaları kumdaki yüzü silip süpüren o deniz, artık hudutsuz bir veri denizidir. İnsan bunun içinde zavallı bir veri setine dönüşmektedir."

[Xander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Infocratie (2021) is een spectaculaire en messcherpe kritische analyse waarmee de Duits-Koreaanse filosoof Byung-Chul Han de hedendaagse informatiemaatschappij ontleedt in al haar details. Zoals in al zijn essays vertrekt Han vanuit een meta-schema waarbij de soevereiniteitsmaatschappij (waar de legitimiteit van de macht berust op zichtbaar vertoon) opgevolgd wordt door de commandomaatschappij (waar lichamen gedisciplineerd worden om economisch nuttig te zijn), die zélf inmiddels is opgevolgd door de controlemaatschappij (waar de mens zichzelf constant disciplineert middels het radicaal uitwissen van het andere, of de Ander - "de hel van het gelijke" aldus Han). De kenner ziet Han hier een post-Foucauldiaans bouwwerk optuigen waarbij Heidegger en Hegel de belangrijkste bouwstenen zijn.

Han's centrale stelling is dat de informatiemaatschappij - een verschijningsvorm van de controlemaatschappij of de surveillancemaatschappij (Han gebruikt de termen door elkaar en benadrukt daarmee telkens een ander aspect van de huidige samenleving) - het communicatieve handelen, de voorwaarde voor democratie en vrijheid, vernietigt. In het communicatieve handelen draait het om het discours: het formuleren van heldere standpunten, argumenteren op basis van feiten, en vooral de erkenning dat er anderen zijn met andere perspectieven (luisteren). Het communicatieve handelen vooronderstelt een leefwereld: een gedeelde ruimte waarbinnen men streeft, via open communicatie en een aantal discursieve spelregels, tot waarheid te komen, of althans waarachtigheid als ideaal nastreeft). De leugenaar - Han noemt Hitler en Orwell's Big Brother (uit 1984) als voorbeelden - erkent de waarheid, d.w.z. hij probeert de werkelijkheid vorm te geven naar zijn eigen opvattingen. Liegen is een parasitair begrip dat zonder waarheid geen bestaansrecht heeft.

Inmiddels zijn we beland in een informatiemaatschappij waar een eindeloze zee aan informatie ons, de mens, overspoelt en uitwist (zoals Foucault als in Les Mots et les Choses betoogde). Informatie is de handelswaar, het alfa en omega. Het probleem: informatie is op zichzelf niets. Informatie en informatieverwerking structureren ons moderne bestaan - en degene die over informatie beschikt heeft de macht - en vervangen daarmee de begrippen waarheid en feitelijkheid. Er wordt niet meer naar waarheid gestreefd, er wordt in informatie geloofd. Informatie scheert langs de waarheid, raakt haar nooit en heeft ook niet de pretentie waarachtig te zijn.

De informatieverwerking vervangt de democratie - in die zin leven we in een postdemocratische tijd - en depolitiseert het politieke, de strijd (à la Carl Schmitt). Politici worden vervangen door experts, modelleurs en informatici; besluitvorming vindt plaats op basis van Big Data, kunstmatige intelligentie en algoritmes - en niet langer op basis van het discours, het uitwisselen van ideeën en de erkenning van de Ander. Hiermee wordt de data-gedreven informatiemaatschappij totalitair, waarbij het de volledige onderwerping (ja, zelfs uitwissing) van de individuele mens vereist, die met zijn 'wil tot willen' een stok in de wielen van het berekenende, belastende, besturende systeem vormt. Echter, het moderne 'dataïstische' totalitarisme is de eerste totalitaire verschijningsvorm zónder ideologie.

Een ander belangrijk aspect van de informatiemaatschappij is de atomisering: gemeenschappen, gemeenschappelijke ruimten, gemeenschappelijke vooronderstellingen, etc. zijn vernietigd, wat resteert is een verzameling individuen die zich als zwermen verplaatsen in het digitale domein: we groeperen ons vluchtig en incidenteel rondom een thema of persoon, via internet, om vervolgens weer te vervallen in ons atomaire bestaan. Er is geen duurzame gemeenschap meer: dit verklaart de driftmatige zoektocht naar 'online communities' waarbij informatie identiteitsbepalend is: welke informatie we onderschrijven bepaalt wie we zijn en bij welke stam we horen - Han spreekt dan ook over de tribalisering van de informatiemaatschappij. Het doet er niet langer toe wat de feiten zijn, of wat de werkelijkheid is, maar waar we in geloven. Dit is exemplarisch en verklaart waarom mensen zo kwaad worden op anderen die hun opvattingen niet delen - men heeft zich volledig geïdentificeerd met zijn eigen opvattingen.

Waar in het discours nog het fundamentele onderscheid tussen eigen mening en identiteit bestond is in de informatiemaatschappij informatie identiteitsbepalend. Enerzijds is hierdoor gemeenschappelijkheid - of überhaupt een gesprek met andersdenkenden - vrijwel onmogelijk; anderzijds leidt dit tot een post-truth tijdperk, waar 'truthiness' - het gevoel dat iets waar is, i.e. subjectieve emoties - de leidraad in ons leven vormt.

Het aardige aan Han's analyses is dat hij net zo scherp is op Trump in het bijzonder en identiteitspolitiek in het algemeen, alsook op de huidige data-gedreven expertocratie: waarbij ons handelen t.o.v. pandemieën, oorlogen en klimaatverandering zijn gedepolitiseerd en modelmatig worden gestuurd. Het huidige totalitarisme van experts en informatieverwerking is voor Han geen menswaardig en nastrevenswaardig alternatief voor de onwaarachtigheid van het identiteitsdenken (zowel op links als rechts). Voor Han zijn al deze fenomenen uitbeeldingen van een veel fundamenteler probleem: de overgang van de biopolitiek, waarbij demofragische informatie leidde tot centrale aansturing van individuen, naar de psychopolitiek, waarbij psychografische informatie leidt tot een eindeloze zelfaansturing van individuen.

Tot slot nog een algemene opmerking over Han. In bijna al zijn essays hanteert Han hetzelfde (hierboven vermelde) model van 'de-psychopolitiek-als-opvolger-van-de-biopolitiek' en past het toe op urgente, specifieke thema's van onze moderne samenleving. Van onze omgang met pijn tot onze prestatiemaatschappij; en van onze obsessie met data en informatiestromen tot de 'positiviteitsterreur' waaronder we gebukt gaan.

Ik heb niet veel op met de moderne filosofie (die teveel verzandt in oninteressante algemeenheden en/of identitair wokisme), maar Byung-Chul Han is een van de weinige moderne filosofen die wél in staat is de fakkel op een waardige manier van zijn voorgangers over te nemen. De manier waarop hij Foucault, Heidegger en Hegel gebruikt om tot oorspronkelijke en originele gedachten te komen is een schoolvoorbeeld voor het leger academische filosofen dat niets anders doet dan op kosten van belastingbetalers het ene na het andere geherkauwde, politiek-correcte, nietszeggende onzinboekje uit te poepen. Lees Han!

[Giovanni84 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Il primo capitolo mi è sembrato un delirio: un susseguirsi di sentenze, prive di linearità e concretezza, un linguaggio confuso, termini come "biopolitico" e "psicopolitico", allusioni a un non meglio precisato "potere" e a "sudditi". Mi ha ricordato certi testi complottisti che mi capitava di leggere tra la fine dei Novanta e i primi anni duemila.
Fortunatamente, il resto del libro è molto più sensato, razionale e concreto.

Al di là del primo e dell'ultimo capitolo, sono d'accordo con praticamente ogni cosa che dice, ma erano opinioni che avevo già prima di leggerlo. Se avessi avuto opinioni diverse, credo che difficilmente avrei trovato convincente, perché a mio parere è argomentato davvero male.
Per gran parte del libro, l'autore è troppo assertivo e troppo veloce.
Dice che le cose stanno così, ma raramente prendendosi la briga di dimostrare che le cose stiano davvero così. A un certo punto, scrive una cosa tipo "alcuni studi dimostrano che..." ma senza minimamente specificare quali siano questi studi.

E generalizza troppo, semplifica troppo, taglia tutto con l'accetta, ha un approccio troppo assolutista, apocalittico ed estremista, mentre le cose sono molto più complesse e ambigue (a mio parere) rispetto a come le racconta lui.

Nell'ultimo capitolo, per me il più interessante (anche perché in quel caso non sono d'accordo con lui) fa tutto un discorso molto intrigante sulla verità, sulle informazioni e la narrazione. E' il capitolo migliore, a mio parere, ma la sua tendenza a parlare sempre in astratto (senza cioè spingersi a fare esempi e riferimenti concreti) e la sua visione in bianco e nero, che gli fa sfuggire i grigi, fa sì che manchi di sostanza.

Non è spazzatura (a parte il primo capitolo), credo che se non altro può spingere il lettore a farsi qualche domanda, offre qualche spunto di riflessione. Ma per una critica approfondita e convincente alla società odierna, bisogna cercare altrove.

[Federica Rampi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Lo tsunami dell’informazione scatena forze distruttive.”

il "regime dell'informazione" ha sostituito quello disciplinare (tipico del capitalismo industriale in cui ognuno è un ingranaggio), perché la grande conquista dell'infocrazia è aver indotto nei suoi consumatori una falsa percezione di libertà.

Oggi il segno della detenzione del potere non è legato al possesso dei mezzi di produzione ma all'accesso all'informazione, che serve per la sorveglianza psicopolitica e la previsione dei comportamenti individuali.

Han sostiene che nella società segnata dal dataismo, ciò che si verifica è una "crisi della verità" che ha preso di mira la distinzione tra verità e menzogna.
Il filosofo porta ad esempio Donald Trump , che agendo e pensando come fosse lui stesso un algoritmo, si è fatto guidare dalle reazioni che ha scatenato su Twitter , diventato "un’arena infocratica. ” in cui primeggiano troll e bot
Trump, a differenza del classico bugiardo che deliberatamente travisa le cose, "è indifferente alla verità dei fatti" e chi è cieco di fronte alla realtà dei fatti è più pericoloso di un bugiardo.

Non tutto questo è avvenuto all’improvviso; i tempi attuali non così lontani da quelli in cui dominava la televisione, ma il regno delle apparenze e delle illusioni non era una fabbrica di fake news, semmai ha contribuito a far prevalere la performance a discapito degli argomenti
L’esempio più eclatante è stato nelle campagne elettorali, trasformate in guerre mediatiche dove la parola perdeva man mano sostanza
“Vince le elezioni chi si presenta meglio sulla scena. Il discorso degenera in show e pubblicità. ”

Nell'infocrazia, invece, le dispute politiche non degenerano in uno spettacolo ma in una "guerra dell'informazione", e qui entrano in campo le fake news, vere e proprie armi che corrono più veloci della verità
E Han, con il pessimismo che gli è caratteristico afferma che "Il tentativo di combattere l'infodemia con la verità è perciò destinato al fallimento. È resistente alla verità"
Nello scenario digitale infine entra un medium di sottomissione, lo smartphone, che ha sostituito lo schermo televisivo rendendo lo spettatore produttore e consumatore attivo di contenuti digitali, in maniera dipendente e maniacale

In questa nuova caverna digitale che regala l’illusione di essere liberi, la verità si perde nel rumore delle informazioni, "spazzata via dal vento digitale.”

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 4 out of 5]

E vamos lá para a resenha de mais uma leitura dos livros da coleção da Editora Vozes do filósofo teuto-sul-coreano Byung Chul-Han. Este é o lançamento mais recente do autor e talvez o que vá mais na direção do que pesquiso. Claro que o livro apresenta muitas das ideias do autor já apresentadas em outras obras dele. Han explica neste livro como, com a digitalização, estamos cada vez mais governados pela informação e como esse tipo de informação que consumimos, cada ve mais rápida e mais curta está influenciando as escolhas que fazemos em nossos governos e gerando uma crise da democracia. Principalmente trazendo para o poder líderes com bases populistas, sejam eles de direita ou de esquerda. Também explicita como os memes ajudaram na ascensão de líderes da extrema direita usando o exemplo de Donald Trump como o ápice desta infocracia até então. Han também traça uma diferenciação entre a informação e a narrativa, dizendo uma uma delas é dataísta e cumulativa e a outra, é envolvente e que põe as pessoas em ação. Mais um livro muito interessante de Han para se analisar a atualidade.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ensayo muy necesario en la actualidad, tratando sobre las raíces profundas de la era de la información y cuan poderosos son gracias a nosotros, dando tantísimos datos diariamente sin darnos cuenta, e incluso buscando ser vistos. Tenemos todo a un simple gesto, no creemos más libres que nunca sin embargo somos más pasivos y sumisos que las anteriores generaciones.

Ya sin mencionar el peligro que hay en la democracia y como la extrema derecha aprovecha la situación.

Lo dicho, muy necesario para pararte a pensar. Aprovecho para recomendar La sociedad del cansancio del mismo autor también.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

De democratie zoals wij die kennen, wordt uitgehold door de systemen van het informatie-kapitalisme. Verkiezingen draaien niet langer om het narratieve, om de grote verhalen die kunnen verbinden omdat ze ergens voorbij de tegenstellingen een diepere, gemeenschappelijke basis hebben om op voort te bouwen. Samen. Met de ander. Verkiezingen draaien nu om de macht van en de strijd om informatie waarmee wij dagelijks overspoeld worden. Gefragmenteerd en door algoritmes zodanig gladgestreken en afgemeten dat we de ander en zijn/haar/diens verhaal niet meer horen, zorgt dat voor een onverschilligheid en een intolerantie die ons voorgeschoteld wordt als persoonlijke vrijheid.

Maar vrij zijn we allerminst, aldus dit alweer actuele en zorgwekkende essay van Byung-Chul Han. Voortbouwend op eerdere werken, zoals Hyperculture: Culture and GlobalisationThe Expulsion of the Other: Society, Perception and Communication Today en Non-Things: Upheaval in the Lifeworld, toont hij haarscherp aan hoe een nieuw informatie-regime onze zogenaamde vrijheid uitbuit en op allerlei manieren gebruik én misbruik maakt van de data die wij 24/7 vrijwillig delen om ons gedrag steeds nauwkeuriger te monitoren. Ik kon niet anders dan terugdenken aan het pas uitgelezen Waarom ik geen mobiele telefoon heb: Aphonismen, waarin Willem Schinkel ook flink tekeer gaat tegen de big data-bedrijven.

En over die big data-bedrijven gesproken: het is hallucinant om hun toekomstvisie hier te lezen betreffende hun op data, informatie en AI draaiende politiek van infocratie, die volgens hen veel accurater en actueler zal functioneren dan politici van vlees en bloed dat doen. In de tussentijd is de waarheid gesneuveld, zijn we steeds slechter in staat en minder geneigd om met andere ideeën om te gaan, laat staan er rekening mee te houden en twittert Donald Trump de democratie rustig verder de vernieling in. Hoopvol klinkt het allemaal niet, maar Byung-Chul Han weet zijn betoog opnieuw helder op te bouwen, deze keer in het boeiende filosofische en literaire gezelschap van Arendt, Habermas, Orwel, Huxley, Plato en Foucault ... als kleine, uitdovende lichtpuntjes.

[Robbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Boeiende reflectie op de tegenwoordige veelheid en fragmentatie van informatie, de manipulerende algoritmes en de gevaren ervan voor de democratie.

Paradoxaal genoeg is Hans (performatieve?) stijl juist wat hij bekritiseert: retorisch en opportunistisch (de esthetisering van discours). Regelmatig vond ik het ontbreken van concrete voorbeelden en empirische bewijzen voor zijn stellingen hinderlijk. Bovendien schrijft Han veelal in soundbite-aforismen met neologismen en hyperbolen die weinig recht doen aan zorgvuldige inhoud.

Hij redeneert bijvoorbeeld meermaals onnodig binair. 'Discursieve openbaarheid wordt niet door infotainment [Habermas] bedreigd, maar door infodemie.' Por que no los dos?

Ook zijn stelling dat we leven in een “gedefactualiseerd universum” waarin feitenwaarheden verdwijnen, kan uiteindelijk haast alleen als provocerende hyperbool betekenis hebben. Het is een interessant idee, maar het onderscheid dat Han in deze context maakt tussen “nieuw nihilisme” en de traditionele retorische charlatans en leugenaars lijkt opnieuw geforceerd binair. Han biedt bovendien - oké, wellicht inherent aan de lengte van het werk - geen sociologische analyse en/of gedegen historische vergelijking, waardoor het ontstaan, de omvang en de historische uniciteit van het door hem ontwaarde nieuwe nihilisme en daarmee het antwoord op de vraag of daadwerkelijk redelijkerwijs gesproken kan worden van “nieuw nihilisme” in een “gedefactualiseerd universum” onvoldoende duidelijk worden.

Infocratie is daarom vooral conceptueel interessant - en leest dus helaas bij tijd en wijle als de cocaïnemonoloog om zeven uur ’s ochtends.

[Flávio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pequeno (porém brilhante) livro. Byung-Chul Han, por mais que abordando conceitos complexos, como a teoria do agir comunicativo de Habermas e o capitalismo de vigilância de Zuboff, trata da questão da democracia digital de forma simples e objetiva.

Para quem tem o mínimo de autoconsciência, o tema aqui abordado mostra-se como óbvio. A sacada, porém, é como Han aborda esse problema.

O autor aborda a questão da infocracia essencialmente como uma inversão do mundo apresentado por Orwell em 1984: no século XXI, nos encontramos mais próximos do domínio nefasto do pensamento humano através do excesso de informação e da injeção digital superficial de um pseudo-senso de liberdade e felicidade via controle de dados do que pelo simbolismo do Grande Irmão. Na pegada da democracia digitalizada, e de sua crise, Huxley é muito mais atual que o escritor de Animal Farm.

Agradeço muito à minha ex-professora da faculdade, Rosemary Segurado, por ter indicado à sala, um ano atrás, a leitura de Byung-Chul Han. Enriquecedor!

[Mireia · Rating 3 out of 5]

este libro no es nada revolucionario ni te va a contar nada nuevo pero es interesante las diferentes cuestiones que plantea, pero en ocasiones el libro se hace un poco estrambótico por la forma de parafrasear algo que se ha escrito dos líneas más arriba.

[MarinaLawliett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mega interesante, aunque me parece demasiado introductorio y corto. Me da la sensación de que se queda muy por encima en algunos puntos.

#eBiblio #audiolibro

[Daniel Escobar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uno de los mejores libros del año.

Es increíble lo diáfano y transparente que escribe Han. La radiografía que hace sobre la información, los medios digitales, la interacción entre el mundo virtual y la democracia es tanto precisa como aterradora. De igual manera, la forma en que habla sobre la atomización del hombre en el mundo virtual y cómo somos cada vez menos humanos y más información es demasiado asertiva.

Es un libro demasiado bueno y fácil de leer aunque toca temas complejos y con referentes bien metidos en la academia (Arendt, Foucault, Habermas, etc). Leí dos veces cada ensayo porque era increíble como estaba tan bien escrito.

Ahora con Trump en la casa blanca, este libro tiene mucha más vitalidad.

Muy recomendado.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leitura obrigatória para os tempos atuais. O regime da informação é a forma de dominação na qual informações e seu processamento por algoritmos e inteligência artificial determinam decisivamente processos sociais, econômicos e políticos.
Não é a posse dos meios de produção que é decisiva para o ganho de poder, mas o acesso a dados utilizados para vigilância, controle e prognóstico de comportamentos psicopolíticos.
Ser livre não significa agir, mas clicar, curtir e postar. Não surge assim, nenhuma resistência.
A comunicação dirigida pelos algoritmos nas redes sociais não é livre, nem democrática.

[Yan Castaldo · Rating 3 out of 5]

definitely not his best work, he sorta starts to sound like a parody of himself in this one. central idea is obviously right and pretty insightful but he’s becoming a broken record from book to book. if you’ve read psychopolitics there’s no reason to read this one; this one is just more overblown and alarmist

[Bohemian Bluestocking · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of his best, but as always I have counter-arguments and questions for him. Basically his critique is always aimed toward post-modernism, how a crisis in truth means a crisis in society and so we are the new nihilists. It is no longer Plato's cave that you can leave or return to in order to save others (Han mourns), but it is a succession of caves. Choose your cave: it doesn't matter. Therefore democracy itself is faltering as well as civilization where freedom, will and autonomy are possible because in order to have a populous and enact political acts, you need a shared knowledge, spaces and desire for discursive communication, and a grounding. Rather he sees humanity as fragmented and having lost the desire for truth. I find his take on the pandemic interesting because he seems to have not noticed the frequent references to 1984, which Han dismisses as having no relevance for our current existential pathologies. I wonder what exactly he is labeling as conspiracy theories, which he says are comforting micro-narratives, which I guess means they aren't actual narratives of the type Han wants. Where Han sees humanity moving toward Huxley's The Brave New World, I wonder if the post-modern era is not simply a time where the elements of system are temporarily upset to move into a more orderly but new structure, as history has always toggled between some version of order and chaos. I'm not sure if I feel this time is eternal leading us toward something apocalyptic, but instead would argue the dialectic of death and rebirth continues. Still, interesting ideas, and in a tight 60 pages, he is more focused than he has been in awhile, so well done, Han. I still think he takes Foucault out of context most of the time and some of his criticisms of philosophers of the past and "what they failed to see/predict" tends toward a lack of generosity.

[Felipe Costa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Em determinado momento Han faz menção a definição de Foucault aos filósofos como jornalistas radicais, de certo modo o livro Infocracia é uma grande manchete.

São muitos argumentos, muitas opiniões, mas acredito que faltou ao autor um melhor desenvolvimento do que foi dito, ficando tudo um pouco solto, como informações.

O argumento central do autor de que passamos por quatro períodos de dominação, a saber: dos mitos, do regime disciplinar, da comunicação de massas e agora o de informação/dados é extremamente interessante. Da mesma forma, o modo como destrincha os livros Admirável Mundo Novo, de Huxley, e 1984, de Orwell.

Um ponto realmente incômodo do livro é que o autor parece simplesmente esquecer a esquerda, centrando seu ataque na direita americana, em especial Donald Trump. O autor chega até mesmo a afirmar que a direita possui mais necessidade de identidade que a esquerda, o que é, no mínimo, questionável.

Em resumo, não acredito que os instrumentos da Infocracia e da Infodemia sejam exclusivos da direita, o argumento central do livro é bom e na verdade se aplica a todos os âmbitos da sociedade atual. Não há uma só eleição desde 2016 que tenha se dado sem o uso massivo de informações “fakes” ou bastante controversas. Além disso, lembrei-me de um fato curioso, quem primeiro trouxe bots que faziam ataque virtuais ao Brasil foi o Partido dos Trabalhadores, com os chamados MAVs, ainda nos primeiros anos de governo Dilma.

Qualquer análise que culpe apenas um grupo de pessoas pelo mal no mundo acaba por ser pueril, acredito que esse seja o melhor adjetivo para o modo como Han desencadeia seu pensamento.

[Maleja Pérez Sánchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aunque en todos sus libros Byung-Chul Han se explaya en su nihilismo que alcanza a volverse un poquitín repetitivo e insoportable, este libro sigue siendo, en mi concepto, tan brillante como todos los suyos.

Una voladura de cabeza en formas muy digeribles para un filósofo y que son la clave del éxito que tiene el autor y la razón por la que otros filósofos lo critican, como sucede siempre en esos medios de “erudición” cuando alguien llega a simplificar las cosas (como los historiadores que detestan a la grandiosa Diana Uribe).

Lo empecé a leer en época electoral y mi ansiedad me obligó a soltarlo. Una vez lo retomé me lo devoré en un par de horas. En fin, un libro interesante, bien escrito, pertinente y que, como siempre con el autor, te deja preocupado. 😑🫠

[Dollisapi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un necesario aterrizaje sobre la situación actual de la información y la democracia. Un corto pero muy contundente pasaje que nos explica, paso a paso, cómo ha mutado el control dictatorial y la manera en que se ejerce ahora. Mucho muy honesto, real y consistente. Imperdible y altamente recomendable.

[Esteban Martínez · Rating 5 out of 5]

¿Me leyó la mente? Un tema muy actual, la era de la información y sus efectos en la democracia. Sobre todo Machine Learning que es estadística aplicada a la sociedad, cuyo origen está en Laplace y su tratado de probabilidades. Rousseau obviamente es influenciado por Laplace. Muy curioso que remita a la misma época en la que surgen las bases de la democracia moderna.

[Antonia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eine sehr gute Zusammenfassung, über ein Thema, das brandaktuell ist und uns mehr beherrscht, als wir es vielleicht realisieren. Manchmal etwas repetitiv.

[Débora Sofia · Rating 4 out of 5]

"(...) A digitalidade enfraquece a consciência dos factos e da facticidade, ou melhor, a consciência da própria realidade." Pág. 58

[Ilaria Arghenini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nonostante il pessimismo e l'amarezza, "Infocrazia" mi sembra una gran bella lettura e trovo che, a dispetto di quello che dicono alcune recensioni, Han ci dia, se non un modo per risolvere le cose, un punto da cui partire.

"Dire la verità è un atto genuinamente politico(..) la vera democrazia, quindi, possiede un eroismo intrinseco."

Il tema è questo: viviamo in una società dove spontaneamente diamo noi informazioni su noi stessi contribuendo a un regime non di sorveglianza ma di informazioni personali rese disponibili.
Non esistono piu media di massa, come la tele, ma oggi ognuno ha un media personale che attinge informazioni dalla propria boll: per questo sta perdendo tereno la democrazia. "La politica si esaurisce in messe in scena massmediali", dove vince chi si presenta meglio, come se fosse un grande spot.
Inotlre, la "costrizione alla comunicazione accelerata ci depriva della razionalità" e così si ha meno tempo per riflettere prima di agire. In questo contesto, funzionano molto bene le immagini (o i meme) perchè sono semplici e di rapida comprensione.
Viene a mancare anche la rappresentanza dell'altro, e si indebolisce il dialogo, che è vero e proprio confronto tra punti di vista diversi. "Senza la presenza dell'altro la mia opinione non è discorsiva nè rappresentativa, bensì autistica, dottinaria e dogmatica". Il dialogo è fondamentale per la democrazia perchè presuppone la distinzione tra la propria opinione e la propria identità.
Oggi, secondo Han, c'è meno dialogo, più attaccamento alla propria opinione perchè definisce l'identità ed è in atto una vera e propria trasformazione narcisistica dove ognuno è concentrato su sè stesso. Ci si divide in "noi" e "loro" (tribalizzaizone progressiva) mettendo così a rischio la democrazia.
Per questo è cosi importante il dialogo e l'ascolto: "la democrazia è una comunità di ascoltatori".
Un'altra conseguenza dei social media digitali è che l'espressione non ha più riferimento ai fatti e rinuncia così a ogni razionalità. Manca una narrazione, una verità senza tempo ma veniamo travolti da talmente tante informazioni che possiamo trovare in rete tutto e il contrario di tutto e la società dell'informazione si rivela dunque una "società della sfiducia". "L'informazione circola ormai completamente scollegata dalla realtà" e si perde fiducia nella fattualità. Perciò "è proprio la digitalità a erodere il fattuale".

I mezzi che abbiamo per salvare la democrazia sono dunque: dialogo, ascolto e dire la verità. "Dire la verità è un atto genuinamente politico(..) la vera democrazia, quindi, possiede un eroismo intrinseco."
"Mentre le informazioni hanno un margine di attualità molto ristretto, la verità è caratterizzata dalla durata. Così essa stabilizza la vita".

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Die Popularität Hans scheint nicht unbegründet, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund der gegenwärtig aufflammenden Desinformationskampagnen rund um die Pandemie sowie den Ukrainekrieg. Die ersten zwei Drittel des Buches schaffen einen groben Überblick, bezeichnen den Fluss an Informationen als der Demokratie abträglich, sowie die digitale Rationalität gegenüber einer kommunikativen als hinderlich bei gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindungsprozessen, deren Ausgang (Konsens oder Dissens) normalerweise im Zuge der Prüfung von Geltungsansprüchen schließlich diskursiv ausgehandelt wird. Dabei bezieht sich Han auf Habermas. Das letzte Drittel, nachdem ein Ende der parlamentarischen Demokratie, wie wir sie kennen, angekündigt wird, scheint Han sich auszutoben, kommt wie ein neokonservativer Prediger á la Paul Boghossian oder John Searle daher. Eine reaktionäre(re) Haltung Han zu unterstellen ist wohlbegründet, da man den Eindruck nicht loswird, Hand postuliere neben den Fake-News Trumps, des totalen Lügengebäudes Hitlers, ein Refugium der "echten" Wahrheit, wie sie bei Platon in der Parrhesia vorkommt und als Mut zur Wahrheit ausgesprochen werden kann. Das Ende der großen Erzählungen ist Zugleich das Ende der Wahrheit. Damit hat Han recht, dennoch sollte dies kein Grund zu Missmut sein: Jahrhunderte lang wurden "im Namen der Wahrheit" Sklaverei, Patriarchat und die Kontrolle des menschlichen Körpers gerechtfertigt. Han kann sich das und der westlichen Prima Philosophia nicht eingestehen, erwähnt nur den dritten der genannten Prozesse, wenn er die auf Foucault referierende Darstellung der Disziplinargesellschaft als überkommen ansieht. Auch damit hat Han recht, Macht ist heute in aller erster Linie transparent, persuasiv und weniger gewalttätig. Dass aber Zwang im Zuge der (legitimen) Herrschaftsausübung, Gewalt im Namen der (illegitimen) Tyrannei zweifelsohne immer noch Bestand haben, das erwähnt Han mit keinem Wort. Er ist damit eingezwängt in ein eigentümliches Missverhältnis zwischen postmodernem Machtverständnis und einem archaisch anmutenden Wahrheitsbegriff, eine Grundspannung, die Han nicht zu lösen vermag.