Open Levinson

Paul Levinson's Open Salon Blog

Paul Levinson

Paul Levinson
Location
New York City, New York, USA
Birthday
March 25
Title
Professor
Company
Fordham University
Bio
Paul Levinson's The Silk Code won the 2000 Locus Award for Best First Novel. He has since published Borrowed Tides (2001), The Consciousness Plague (2002), The Pixel Eye (2003), and The Plot To Save Socrates (2006). His science fiction and mystery short stories have been nominated for Nebula, Hugo, Edgar, and Sturgeon Awards. His eight nonfiction books, including The Soft Edge (1997), Digital McLuhan (1999), Realspace (2003), and Cellphone (2004), have been the subject of major articles in the New York Times, Wired, the Christian Science Monitor, and have been translated into ten languages. New New Media, exploring how Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogging have changed our lives, was published in September 2009. Paul Levinson appears on "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News), "The CBS Evening News," the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” (PBS), “Nightline” (ABC), and numerous national and international TV and radio programs. He reviews the best of television in his InfiniteRegress.tv blog. Paul Levinson is Professor of Communication & Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
OCTOBER 6, 2008 5:15PM

Bill Gates Interviewed by Fareed Zakaria

Rate: 7 Flag

I just saw Bill Gates interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on his new CNN Sunday  show.


I've always been a supporter of Gates and how he changed America and the world with his vision. Indeed, I opposed the U.S. government's anti-monopoly campaign against Microsoft to the point of publishing "Leave Microsoft Alone" in the June 8, 1998 issue of The Industry Standard. (See my Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium, pp. 88-91, if you have difficulty locating that article.) My view, which hasn't changed, is that the very nature of the Internet, in which anyone can become a star, a millionaire, make an important contribution to the growth of knowledge, means that no corporation, however powerful, can really dominate it. Gates through Windows and the Internet gave everyone the best means of competing with him. Even if he had had a monopoly on the medium (which he did not), that medium made it utterly impossible for anyone to monopolize thoughts and ideas.

Zakaria's talk with Gates today is the longest and best I have ever seen Gates interviewed.

Among the points Gates covered:

.The US is not in such bad shape in our current credit meltdown and bailout crisis. We are still and will very likely continue to be leaders in information technology innovation - and in the higher education that makes that possible. (Gates is famously a Harvard dropout, but that doesn't stop him from seeing the value of education where needed.)

.Gates does not believe in leaving huge sums of money to his descendants - in fact, where philanthropy doesn't work, he's in favor of greatly increasing inheritance taxes. (I'm in favor of no taxes to anyone making less than a million dollars a year, but increased taxes for everyone making more - see I'm A Progressive Libertarian.)

.Gates was delighted to discover from his worldwide charitable work that when child mortality is reduced, the population does not increase. This is because parents in poor countries are likely to have fewer children when they know their kids will survive.

.Gates welcomes the competition of Google and Apple, and any one else who can come along with new ideas and alternatives to our current world of new media (which I call new new media). He talked about smart walls and cellphones you could use to make digital copies of receipts.


All in all, a fine 30-minute interview on Fareed Zakaria, GPS (Global Public Square). I've seen Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama, and now Bill Gates on the show since it debuted in June. It's become one of my favorite interview shows, and I'd say Zakaria is becoming the Charlie Rose and the Mark Molaro of cable.

PS - I wasn't able to embed the video here, but you can see it on my other blog InfiniteRegress.tv  - well worth watching.

 

Author tags:

fareed zakaria, bill gates

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Great! I wondered what Zakaria was doing; really enjoy him. Thanks for the post and heads up.

Gate's dad even teamed up with a Oscar Meyers Weiner scion to lobby for increased inheritance taxes. Great wealth can clear the mind.

rated
I always thought the suit against Microsoft was to force them to give the goverment back doors into everyone's system. After lobbying for weak encryption and losing the gov wanted more ability to spy. And MS has always had issues. Outlook, SQL Server, Dot Net. Were these holes accidental or intentional?

We know the gov wanted MS to give them info on their OS. The suit was probably nothing but a shakedown of MS for better spying techniques.
As you said, the internet was the best thing that ever happened to computing, but in my opinion, it's because it lessened the stranglehold that Microsoft had on the industry. With respect, no matter what you think of Gates personally ( and anyone giving away the money he does deserves major karma) , his company is based on heavy marketing, the sole ownership of standards, the buyout and stifling of competition and the "not a bug, but a feature" approach to application programming. You should all thank Apple for keeping Microsoft software marginally useful; he welcomes their competition so he can spend less on R&D.
I don't see the world as Mircosoft vs. Apple or vs. Google, but as all making great contributions that changed and our changing our lives for the better.

No doubt that Microsoft has been heavy-handed in some of its marketing - but that still didn't justify the US gov's anti-trust suit.
As someone who works with both platforms, and frequently trains users in Microsoft products, I think that they could have done much, much more to advance usability and have chosen raw market share over the higher road. They have often fought to retain their near-monopoly in operating systems, in various underhanded ways. Please believe that I am not slamming Microsoft users or Bill Gates, but I do think that Microsoft deserved to be challenged in court.
Well, I don't bringing the government in to regulate the economy ... but, that's ok, we have a difference of opinion.
Paul, did you just say that you don't believe in bringing in the government to regulate business? Just want to make sure I am not putting words into your mouth. If you did I assume you have not been following the recent financial meltdown due to lack of regulation. Perhaps you did not read about the reasons for the Great Depression. Did you realize that Teddy Roosevelt had a real problem with the robber barons in the early 20th century so he initiated anti trust lawsuits?

Europe is often ahead of the US on regulating monopolies and has come down hard on Microsoft for some time. Fortunately, some of what you said was true and the market may see fundamental shifts away from Microsoft like it did with IBM. This does not change the tactics Microsoft used to attempt to control its market. Also, Microsoft did not invent the Internet or even the best browser if I remember right.

I do agree with you and Bill Gates about inheritance. Thanks for your post.
I should have written - "I don't believe in the government regulating the economy to the point of breaking up a company that brought us so much wealth, with an anti-trust suit."

Obviously, some regulation is necessary - as you aptly say about the current meltdown.

But making some ground rules about how business is conducted is a far cry from the government trying to put a company out of business, or splitting it in pieces, which is what anti-trust legislation is designed to do.

As for history - the greatest age of American invention and technological invention was the late Victorian era, in which telephone, phonograph, motion pictures, and radio were invented (just for starters in media), and the automobile, electric light, air flight, etc in other industries. This was an era with no anti-trust regulation and no income tax, for that matter.

So, right, I think TR was wrong with his trust-busting.

And regarding the Great Depression, FDR was right was to implement insurance for bank deposits, public work projects, etc - it was the absence of bank insurance of depositors, for example, which caused the run on the banks and the worst of the Great Depression.
Thanks for your comment Paul. I will have to look into TR's trust busting with more effort before I can reply.