It is eight years ago that Andreas Ekström's book came out on Google. In this context it is eternity. It is also in the new book by Andreas Ekström. Where the & # 39; Google Code & # 39; cautiously optimistic, & # 39; Finding & # 39; a sense of disappointment and concern for the future.
The book can cover actually all the difficult legal, political and media issues that we face today: network neutrality, the right to be forgotten and the role of Google as a kind of publicist. These are questions that determine our time of publicity, and when discussing the problems, there are few in Sweden today who have beaten Andreas Ekström's sharp pencil, which always finds clear, educational and straightforward arguments in chronicles.
Andreas Ekströms states that network neutrality must be saved, that Google alone can not take responsibility for publicity and that people can not rely solely on algorithms and technology to find answers to questions that can not be answered yes or no according to a binary system. response.
But the book is not just a crown collection. There is also a way to analyze the questions in a more essay form. It is welcome, but paradoxically it becomes a problem that Andreas Ekström is such a highly skilled chronologist. Where the chronicle drives a thesis to the end and leads to a conclusion, it requires the essence of the text, shows the complexity of the questions and turns the perspectives on. It happens too rarely, even if the material itself is interesting.
Instead of really struggling with the complicated questions about how technical tools influence our thinking and learning ability, Andreas Ekström usually opts for a comparison with the times when the internet was not yet available.
I come to myself by repeatedly writing the word "birthplace" in the margin. It is to the birthplace that Andreas Ekström returns to the country in something that is insightful and somewhat safe. I do not even think it's conscious, but the figure comes back in different places.
Consciously or unconsciously – if the book allowed itself more time to land in essay form, there would have been room to think about the thought-pattern and why the person is often looking for you in the predominant time.
"Finding" is certainly a very timely and good assessment of the fate of the digital audience. But life expectancy is limited by the fact that, contrary to what the foreword claims, it prefers to answer rather than ask questions.