Books focused on technology often struggle to remain relevant. As companies rise and fall and new products continuously flood the market, these texts risk quickly becoming outdated.
However, last year, Gil Durán, the author of “Nerd Reich,” proclaimed it was time to revisit the work of Paulina Borsook, who he believes accurately described the tech landscape 25 years ago and attempted to issue warnings. Following this, reports stated that Borsook’s influential 2000 book, “Cyberselfish,” was garnering renewed interest as readers sought to understand the missteps of the tech industry.
After being out of print for some time, “Cyberselfish” is set to be re-released in a fresh edition by Tin House.
During a Zoom discussion, Borsook expressed that her book serves as “almost a travelogue” detailing her exploration of what she calls the techno-libertarian ideals permeating Silicon Valley culture.
Borsook described this perspective as “a 12-year-old view of the world,” encapsulating a belief system that is staunchly anti-regulation, despite the tech industry’s significant benefits from government support. She noted how this mindset persisted even after the dot-com bubble burst, stating, “It was uncorrected, and it just spread out more and more.”
Though she has not published a follow-up to her initial work and felt ignored by publishers post-“Cyberselfish,” Borsook realized last year that used copies of the book were selling for increasingly higher prices. She also noticed unexpected social media mentions praising the book’s significance, leading to renewed press attention and the new edition from Tin House, which includes a fresh introduction by Durán.
In our in-depth conversation, which has been edited for clarity and length, Borsook elaborates on her views regarding AI, the evolution of the tech industry over 25 years, and her advice for young entrepreneurs entering the field.
Can you share how your fascination with techno-libertarianism began and what led you to believe there was a book worth writing about it?
My journey has always been somewhat unintentional. I got involved in tech circles in the Bay Area during the 1980s. By the early 1990s, I began hearing peculiar comments that left me perplexed.
I’m not one to debate; instead, I prefer to listen. Initially, I lacked the terminology to label these attitudes, only referring to them as libertarian. Growing up near the Caltech-JPL space program, I was accustomed to a different kind of STEM culture that appreciated the government’s role and avoided self-glorification.
As I observed Silicon Valley, I found it contradictory that a sector that had benefitted so much from government support would express such anti-government sentiments.
My agent approached me shortly after my MFA at Columbia, questioning if I had a nonfiction book idea. I shared my observations of this bewildering subculture I was encountering. This led me down the path of examining the topic in depth, which I approached as a kind of travelogue rather than a strict polemic.
I felt uniquely positioned to explore this narrative, as it seemed largely overlooked by others.
Were there works on the tech industry pre-dating “Cyberselfish” that acknowledged this libertarian influence within Silicon Valley?
Indeed, much of the writing from the 1990s and beyond was largely celebratory, without probing deeper into the underlying issues.
A recent talk by New York Times reporter John Markoff highlighted that Silicon Valley comprises various cultures, particularly noting its countercultural elements. While I acknowledge these exist, I was more focused on a different aspect that I felt deserved attention.
It appears you distinguish the techno-libertarians as separate from the counterculture rather than an extension of it.
Yes, I made distinctions between two groups: the Ravers, who embody liberal ideals, and the Gilders, who lean conservative. This division still resonates in today’s Silicon Valley, with a mix of conservative leaders and culturally liberal individuals.
What might be considered countercultural is the emphasis on personal freedom. Yet, despite these varying beliefs, the political affiliations within this cultural landscape are often murky.
Indeed, some leaders might hold controversial views while others conform to them for job security.
Absolutely. Many employees feel compelled to remain silent about their beliefs, prioritizing job security over personal convictions.
For those who perceive the libertarian ethos in the tech community, what makes techno-libertarianism concerning?
First and foremost, it represents an outdated perspective. This belief system is profoundly anti-regulation and overlooks the reliance on government support that has facilitated their success, from R&D to infrastructure.
While I acknowledge that government can err—illustrated by examples like Vietnam and the CIA’s actions—I argue that this sector has considerably less to complain about.
Frustratingly, many in tech are relocating to states like Nevada to evade California taxes while claiming that California is oppressive, ignoring the government’s role in the quality of life they enjoy.
How does the current state of the tech industry align with past trends?
Regrettably, I see more continuity than change. The Netscape IPO marked a significant shift when Wall Street influencers infiltrated Silicon Valley, bringing with them a change in attitude that remains evident today.
Even after the burst of the dot-com bubble, the prevailing mindset persisted unchecked, like a lingering contamination within the culture.
Entities like Airbnb and Uber embody a financial rather than innovative approach, showing how deeply entrenched that old attitude remains.
While technology has produced remarkable developments, the underlying business culture today often celebrates sociopathy in a manner that wasn’t previously normalized.
How do you interpret the rise of AI within this context?
AI represents a perfect example of this mindset, championed by those who believe they’re beyond reproach. Currently, I view the AI industry as somewhat of a Ponzi scheme.
A recent Apple advertisement highlighted this disconnect, showcasing a tone-deaf approach that starkly contrasts with the brand’s earlier ideals.
As you prepare for this new edition of “Cyberselfish,” when did you start recognizing a resurgence of interest in the book?
It was a somewhat painful process, but periodically I would check used book platforms to see my work selling for virtually nothing, which was disheartening. Recently, however, I noticed prices inching upward, and I began receiving interest from unexpected sources, including European academics.
This led me to connect with Gil Durán, and after a shared lunch, it became clear that we shared similar perspectives. His discussions with other journalists reignited interest in my work and spurred the decision to bring the book back into print.
Will the new edition largely feature the original content of the book?
Yes, aside from an additional introduction by Gil explaining the book’s revival, the content remains unchanged. The acquiring editor emphasized not to alter any of the original text, which I appreciated, as it is a historical artifact.
Looking ahead, do you think individuals within large tech firms can instigate reform internally?
I wish I could say with certainty that they could. Young people aspiring to work in tech often ask how they can align their careers with their values, especially since AI currently dominates investment interests.
I have concerns about the ability of employees in tech to influence change, especially given the precarious job market. Many are holding onto their positions, which makes pursuing reform challenging.
While I remain hopeful for the next generation, the current environment challenges their capacity for innovation outside the focus on AI or military contracts.
Ultimately, I am cynical but still optimistic that those interested in developing responsible technology can find avenues for funding or create impactful spin-offs from larger firms.
