deedoo's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative

4.0

jbriaz's review

Go to review page

DNF at the end of chapter 4 (25% in). 

0 stars. This book is a disaster. 

I generally agree with the other 1 star and 2 star reviews. This book is marketed as an investigation into the tech billionaires doomsday cellars, bunkers, etc. The reader receives almost nothing about it. Instead it is an anti-capitalist cyberpunk screed using recycled Marxist arguments that are so unoriginal that Karl Marx himself made them 160 years ago. Beyond that, Rushkoff clearly did not undertake the barest amount of research, which is frustrating given that he is an academic. And he lacked any focus or coherence in the book. As said above, he didn't write about tech billionaires fallout shelters. He instead moves from random topic to random topic harping on the problems with modern society and how tech billionaires and tech companies are extracting value and subjecting the poor. He does not use hard evidence to support his points or quality research. (And I say this as someone who generally agrees with his arguments.) He would've been better served just making a YouTube video ranting about these subjects than trying to market this into a book. 

charelia's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

3.5

mogreig's review

Go to review page

5.0

The plan the tech billionaires have for our future is scary. This book will convince you why we mustn't let that happen.

grigtod's review

Go to review page

informative inspiring slow-paced

3.0

mr_jajo's review

Go to review page

adventurous challenging hopeful informative inspiring reflective tense medium-paced

5.0

abra3326's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging informative sad medium-paced

4.25

audder's review

Go to review page

informative

4.0

soupdujor's review

Go to review page

dark informative sad fast-paced

4.0

penderworth's review

Go to review page

3.0

Some good bits, but overall a lot of restating things Rushkoff and his counterparts have said in other work. There were also some odd anecdotes that didn’t add much to the primary arguments.