Between 1959 and 1989, Soviet scientists and officials made numerous attempts to network their nation—to construct a nationwide computer network. None of these attempts succeeded, and the enterprise had been abandoned by the time the Soviet Union fell apart. Meanwhile, ARPANET, the American precursor to the Internet, went online in 1969. Why did the Soviet network, with top-level scientists and patriotic incentives, fail while the American network succeeded? In How Not to Network a Nation, Benjamin Peters reverses the usual cold war dualities and argues that the American ARPANET took shape thanks to well-managed state subsidies and collaborative research environments and the Soviet network projects stumbled because of unregulated competition among self-interested institutions, bureaucrats, and others. The capitalists behaved like socialists while the socialists behaved like capitalists.
After examining the midcentury rise of cybernetics, the science of self-governing systems, and the emergence in the Soviet Union of economic cybernetics, Peters complicates this uneasy role reversal while chronicling the various Soviet attempts to build a “unified information network.” Drawing on previously unknown archival and historical materials, he focuses on the final, and most ambitious of these projects, the All-State Automated System of Management (OGAS), and its principal promoter, Viktor M. Glushkov. Peters describes the rise and fall of OGAS—its theoretical and practical reach, its vision of a national economy managed by network, the bureaucratic obstacles it encountered, and the institutional stalemate that killed it. Finally, he considers the implications of the Soviet experience for today’s networked world.
Endorsements
“Benjamin Peters’s book is not only a scintillating explanation of why the Soviet Internet failed to materialize but also a first-rate sociopolitical investigative report and a delicious tale of how Soviet efforts to manage a command economy left them without either command or an economy.”
—Todd Gitlin, Professor and Chair, PhD Program in Communications, Columbia University; author of Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives
“Peters offers a compelling account of the Soviet Union’s failed attempts to construct their own Internet during the Cold War period. How Not to Network a Nation fills an important gap in the Internet’s history, highlighting the ways in which generativity and openness have been essential to networked innovation.”
—Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law and Computer Science, Harvard University; Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
“As early as 1962, cybernetics experts in the Soviet Union proposed a complex, large-scale computer network. It fit with a socialist vision but not with bureaucratic politics and a faltering command economy. It was never realized, but the story sheds light both on Soviet history and on the social conditions that shape computing and communications networks. It is a previously unknown story, now elegantly told by Benjamin Peters together with a thoughtful analysis that makes the early history of computing seem full of possibilities not obvious.”
—Craig Calhoun, FBA, Director and President, London School of Economics and Political Science
Awards
Honorable Mention, 2017 PROSE Awards, History of Science, Medicine and Technology category

通过民意调查来量化美国人的情绪，这看起来是一种评估人们需要、不偏不倚的方法，在本书书中，作者却论证说：测量公众舆论的方式影响到选民、立法者和记者们解释公众舆论的方式。通过追踪美国从19世纪的模拟投票到当前的抽样调查的公众舆论历史，作者表明了数字如何既承担着工具性功能，又承担着符号性功能；不仅扩散着中立性信息，还让渡权威。她指出，民意调查的科学诱惑力并没有充分地提升公共辩论，相反，它常常通过窄化公共辩论的边界，促使我们忽略公共问题的某些维度。在分析公众舆论的量化如何影响到当代政治和民主进程的基础上，作者针对美国政治运作提出了一些根本性的，却又难以解决的问题。

本书对以中国为首的互联网审查制度，以政治学的角度进行了讨论。

A few generations ago, college students showed their romantic commitments by exchanging special objects: rings, pins, varsity letter jackets. Pins and rings were handy, telling everyone in local communities that you were spoken for, and when you broke up, the absence of a ring let everyone know you were available again. Is being Facebook official really more complicated, or are status updates just a new version of these old tokens?
Many people are now fascinated by how new media has affected the intricacies of relationships and their dissolution. People often talk about Facebook and Twitter as platforms that have led to a seismic shift in transparency and (over)sharing. What are the new rules for breaking up? These rules are argued over and mocked in venues from the New York Times to lamebook.com, but well-thought-out and informed considerations of the topic are rare.
Ilana Gershon was intrigued by the degree to which her students used new media to communicate important romantic information—such as "it's over." She decided to get to the bottom of the matter by interviewing seventy-two people about how they use Skype, texting, voice mail, instant messaging, Facebook, and cream stationery to end relationships. She opens up the world of romance as it is conducted in a digital milieu, offering insights into the ways in which different media influence behavior, beliefs, and social mores. Above all, this full-fledged ethnography of Facebook and other new tools is about technology and communication, but it also tells the reader a great deal about what college students expect from each other when breaking up—and from their friends who are the spectators or witnesses to the ebb and flow of their relationships. The Breakup 2.0 is accessible and riveting.

这本书提出了两个重要概念：不确定性和信息。不确定性是指特定情景下各种事件发生的可能性。不确定性促使决策者具体地收集信息。当个体面临多种不确定性的选择方案时，信息往往起着重要的作用。

Now in its fifth edition, Diffusion of Innovations is a classic work on the spread of new ideas. It has sold 30,000 copies in each edition and will continue to reach a huge academic audience. In this renowned book, Everett M. Rogers, professor and chair of the Department of Communication & Journalism at the University of New Mexico, explains how new ideas spread via communication channels over time. Such innovations are initially perceived as uncertain and even risky. To overcome this uncertainty, most people seek out others like themselves who have already adopted the new idea. Thus the diffusion process consists of a few individuals who first adopt an innovation, then spread the word among their circle of acquaintances--a process which typically takes months or years. But there are exceptions: use of the Internet in the 1990s, for example, may have spread more rapidly than any other innovation in the history of humankind. Furthermore, the Internet is changing the very nature of diffusion by decreasing the importance of physical distance between people. The fifth edition addresses the spread of the Internet, and how it has transformed the way human beings communicate and adopt new ideas.

《虚实之间》对20世纪50年代（及前后）在中国大陆暴发的一些较大规模的谣言现象作了深入剖析。这些谣言包括“毛人水怪”谣言、“割蛋”谣言、“仙水”“神药”谣言以及投毒的谣言。作者李若建指出，谣言是社会环境投射的影子。谣言也与民众的集体记忆紧密相关。“谣言往往是在把真实成分重新建构的过程中出现了位置错配”。作者认为，制止谣言最根本的方法是信息的公开、真实、及时。《虚实之间》在今天仍然具有启迪和警示意义。

《娱乐至死：童年的消逝》里，波兹曼指出，一切公众话语日渐以娱乐的方式出现，并成为一种文化精神。我们的政治、宗教、新闻、体育、教育和商业都心甘情愿地成为娱乐的附庸，毫无怨言，甚至无声无息，其结果是我们成了一个娱乐至死的物种。这是一份精彩、有力、重要且难以辩驳的控诉书。在《童年的消逝》里，波兹曼运用他对心理学、历史学、语义学和麦克卢汉学说的深刻见解以及常识，非常有说服力地阐述了一个触目惊心而且颇具独创的论题，即童年的诞生，是因为新的印刷媒介在儿童和成人之间强加了一些分界线，而在电视之类媒体的猛烈攻击下分界线变得越来越模糊，成人的性秘密和暴力问题转变为娱乐，新闻和广告定位在10岁孩子的智力水平。这也是一份内容翔实、令人震惊的警世书。
乔治·奥威尔曾在《一九八四年》中预占人们将会遭受外来压迫的奴役，失去自由，我们的文化成为受制文化，赫肯黎则在《美丽新世界》中表达了另外一种忧虑，人们会渐渐爱上压迫，崇拜那些使他们丧失思考能力的工业技术。作为新闻与传播学被广泛参阅和引用的经典，《娱乐至死》与《童年的消逝》想告诉人家的是，可能成为现实的，是赫胥黎的预言，而不是奥威尔的预言；毁掉我们的，不是我们所憎恨的东西，而恰恰是我们所热爱的东西！

《技术垄断:文化向技术投降》认为，人类技术的发展可分为三个阶段：工具使用、技术统治和技术垄断三个阶段；人类文化大约也分为相应的三种类型：工具使用文化、技术统治文化和技术垄断文化。和其他学者一样，波斯曼认为，技术和人的关系是亦敌亦友的关系，但他死死地盯着技术的阴暗面，以免技术对文化造成伤害。他认为：在工具使用文化阶段，技术服务、从属于社会和文化；在技术统治文化阶段，技术向文化发起攻击，并试图取而代之，但难以撼动文化；在技术垄断文化阶段，技术使信息泛滥成灾，使传统世界观消失得无影无形，技术垄断就是集权主义的技术统治。《技术垄断》认为，“信息革命”经历了印刷术、电报、摄影术、广播和电脑等五个阶段。在技术垄断到来之前，信息控制机制帮助人驾驭技术，这些机制有：法庭、学校、家庭、政党、国家和宗教。到了技术垄断阶段，抵御信息泛滥的多重堤坝和闸口土崩瓦解，世界就难以驾驭、难以把握了。《技术垄断》揭示技术垄断阶段各种“软”技术的欺骗作用，挞伐所谓的社会“科学”，谴责唯科学主义，它辨析自然科学、社会“科学”和文学的异同，它为传统符号的耗竭扼腕痛惜，它号召人们以强烈的道德关怀和博爱之心去拼死抵抗技术垄断，并坚决反对文化向技术投降。