The central mistake of the second half is this: “Vision 1: CONNECT KNOWLEDGE, PEOPLE, AND CATS. This is the correct vision.” He conflates computing with the We

The central mistake of the second half is this: “Vision 1: CONNECT KNOWLEDGE, PEOPLE, AND CATS. This is the correct vision.” He conflates computing with the Web, and argues that the Web is fine just the way it is; it just needs to be spread more widely. As if there aren’t plenty of people already trying to do exactly that. What he ignores is that computing is an expression of human creativity. Like literature and music, you take it into a context that it wasn’t written for, and it rarely produces a desirable response. As long as computing is relevant, we will need new software. The last 100 years of computing machines have proven that this still applies. A web based on ad revenue is no good in an area with poor electricity infrastructure and low bandwidth, so the famous M-Pesa has a completely different interface and different software than Wells Fargo Online® Banking. The article/talk has some good points, but they aren’t connected together in a good way.