I was surprised, but not really, to find a book about the harms of information technology is pushing bad history. The history wasn’t written by a historian, in other words. Take this bit, for example.

First, Socrates wrote nothing. He feared that writing would misrepresent ideas. Ironic, given we know of him from Plato, who put the critique of writing in writing, framed as a myth in a dialogue. We read that “Socrates genuinely feared” writing, as a claim made through a literary character.

Second, “words on paper” is anachronistic; think papyrus and wax or carved stone. Stuff that’s very hard to change when it’s wrong.

Third, the quote the footnote mentions is a documented fabrication: the famous “youth today are lazy and disrespect their elders” line comes from Kenneth John Freeman’s 1907 Cambridge dissertation, where he paraphrased general ancient complaints about the young. Later writers added Socrates’ name, without evidence. The author says “there’s a different Socrates quote in my previous book” and my guess is the fake one.

The bottom line is Socrates is far more nuanced and useful. Phaedrus 275d–e expressed that written words cannot defend themselves, and they drift to readers they were never meant for. Those are true problems; a critique of static text versus live dialogue, which remains a fairly sharp point in debates about media that simulate understanding without possessing it. Did I mention the irony, yet? This book is wrong about Socrates, exactly as Socrates had warned us.

To be fair, the author is known for light-hearted handling of subjects. Still, it’s useful to know his book about information technology risk ended up proving the whole point unintentionally.

Related: