Here goes my 2021 reading log! I anticipate fewer books this year as I have started switching to taking more in-depth notes. But we'll see!
If you're looking for my 2020 log, it's over there. Was I ever young, foolish, and innocent way back then! https://tweets.berjon.com/1212591424002306048
"The Ethical Algorithm", by @mkearnsupenn and @Aaroth.
An excellent introduction to the field, focusing on solutions (on the assumption you know there are problems). Nontechnical, but usefully applicable in the trenches. 
(Many thanks to @bayesianboy who got me this in the Philosophy Twitter Secret Santa that @euthyphro set up to much delight. ♥)
"Babylon's Ashes", by James S. A. Corey.
Humans can do some really shitty things, but not all of them. Alien artefacts are alien. By now you know how this works. 
"Nihilism and Technology", by @ethicistforhire.
A critical, Nietzschean take on technology. The five tactics to make nihilism palatable show the clear line to tech: self-hypnosis, mechanical activity, petty pleasures, herd instincts, orgies of feeling. Sounds familiar? 
"Governing the Commons", by Elinor Ostrom.
Finally finished this (lost my previous copy midway ðŸ˜), and it lived up to its reputation. Another classic for the anarchistic theory of governance.
s
s
"Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile", by @edenmedina.
There is much to love in this book. A fast-paced rendition of Allende's short time in power centring on Cybersyn, a project that blended cybernetics and socialism. 
What little attention I've paid to cybernetics I've found it to be superficial, pompous, and vacuous (eg. Wiener). Not here. I need to spend more time with his solutions, but the problem space that cybernetician Stafford Beer (this name!) inhabits with Cybersyn resonates with me.
There is no telling whether Cybersyn might have worked (for some value of that) without the coup, but as described it doesn't come across as the sort of naive and totalitarian cybernetic project that had been tried previously in Russia. (See "Red Plenty".) https://tweets.berjon.com/1277070852119543809
Beer is looking for a third way between the dogmas of centralisation and decentralisation, and for an alternative to bureaucracy. He is not working towards a system that does things in people's stead but rather one that assists them.
These are the problems we live in. Tech, as deployed today, is a form of bureaucracy that doesn't even require a police force. It is massively centralised and top-down, attended to by a priesthood that decides what we need the tech to do in our place. How do we break that?
I don't know if diagnosing the right problems led him to some useful solutions, but I intend to spend a bit of time in the Stafford Beer rabbit hole to find out! 
"Designing Freedom", by Stafford Beer.
A few interesting ideas, but mostly in the form of incantatory allegories without much to build from. 
"How To Take Smart Notes", by @soenke_ahrens.
Does exactly what it says on the tin, this book has really helped me improve my note/thinking process. Highly recommended. 
"The Cybernetic Brain", by Andrew Pickering.
A great ride through the British side of cybernetics, full of rich ideas and characters. It also opens up the topic of cybernetics as a constructive alternative to modernity, an alternative future sorely needed in tech. 
"L'utopie déchue", by @FelixTreguer.
An excellent history of the Internet, from 15C to today's neofeudal system. It does an excellent job going through the many events and ideologies that have led to this point, thereby making it clear that it's not over. 
"Klara and the Sun", by Kazuo Ishiguro.
The first person bittersweet confusion of an AI of sorts, executed with great craft, often moving. I liked it a lot more than the previous one. 
"Your Computer Is On Fire", by @tsmullaney, @bjpeters, @histoftech, @techno_kavi (eds., with a superstar cast inside)
A collection of powerful essays on very relevant issues in tech today. The focus is critical, naturally, but not doom and gloom. 
Technology is a humanities; those who fail to approach it this way lack the intellectual equipment to govern it.
This book can help one get started.
"Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarising", by @chris_bail.
It's likely that everything you know about polarisation and online echo chambers is wrong. The intuitive solutions you have are probably wrong too. Many of mine were! 
One thing I wonder about that isn't in the book is how much decontextualisation helps polarisation. Predigital social encounters were often contextual: you could present a different identity at work, at the bar, when bowling, with your biker friends, etc.
With social media, you only have one identity across all contexts. I come here for philosophy, politics, science, tech... I would probably present at least slightly differently if those were in different contexts, but they're not.
Intuitively (but that could be wrong), I feel like this mosh pit has to drive sorting.
Beyond social media systems that drive unifying identity across contexts (eg. SSOs) are probably deleterious.
I'm not aware of studies on this but would love to hear.
Other thought from the book: in a previous life, I had started hacking on a new kind of social network precisely to find consensus. It was based on what I wrote in fondapol.org/etude/berjon-i…, which I intentionally worked on with a conservative think tank.
The principle was that you would write positions. Others could fork them to modify them where they disagreed. You could also merge positions, to create groups behind a text (that would then have to discuss further merges and changes). Sort of GitHub for policy ideas.
The goal was to gain enough traction to make it into actual law. One driving idea was the maintenance of these positions, which require work and investment to build and maintain: this is a key driver for compromise (just as in open source/standards).
Would it have worked? Who knows. If anyone wants to try it, let me know!
"The Consequences of Modernity", by Anthony Giddens.
I liked it for the intellectual toolbox it offers. An idea like "disembedding" captures notions of "lost locality of processes" much less clumsily. The view of modernity as us "riding a juggernaut" works well for tech critics. 
Its biggest limit is probably that it's written with the idea that 1990 is high modernism and so fails to see just how much more modernist things can get in a world of platforms, with globe-spanning bureaucracies and disembedded selves over social media. Talk of juggernauts...
I also question his diagramming abilities. I mean, he has a bunch of the following. I like the things listed on them, but I have no idea what the diagram means. 
0276299796483-EyLNZcJW8AAQxGW.jpg" width="1024" height="667">0276299796483-EyLNZUzWYAA5FOl.jpg" width="1024" height="659">
0276299796483-EyLNZcJW8AAQxGW.jpg" width="1024" height="667">0276299796483-EyLNZUzWYAA5FOl.jpg" width="1024" height="659">
For those who are following this for the cat pictures, the cat soon lost interest. https://tweets.berjon.com/1378852243521294336
"The Revelations", by @erikphoel.
Brilliant, one of the best reads in a while. A brainy murder mystery that'll speak to your gut with sharp writing, vivid thinking, and details that gave me complicit smiles. You won't wake up quite so casually the next day. 
"A Powerful Particulars View of Causation", by @RIngthorss
A highly interesting set of views on causal production and the substance/process debates. I am quite taken with these views.
taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-mono/… 
"Cambrian Intelligence: The Early History of the New AI", by Rodney Brooks.
A collection of very interesting papers about a situated, embodied, performative approach to intelligence. It made me want to find out more about where that field is today. 
"The Uncontrollability of the World", by Hartmut Rosa.
A short exploration of the radical ideology of control that defines modernity, and of the value of uncontrollability, of what cannot be engineered. 
He makes a good point (similar to Giddens) that the structures and institutions of modernity, particularly in the radical form they hold today, are relatively new and can therefore be changed. He does not, however, have a clear way out (not that I do either).
One part that struck me is that his description of uncontrollability as sitting in between control and contingency, and of its properties, is very similar to that of the critical regime, in between the ordered and random regimes. It makes me wonder if complexity science may help.
(Thanks to @LMSacasas for pointing at this book.)
"Persepolis Rising", by James S. A. Corey.
There is a melancholy joy in scraping just enough of a victory to keep some hope alive in the face of an overwhelming imperium. 
"This Is How They Tell Me The World Ends", by @nicoleperlroth.
Very much like a high-stakes techno-thriller, except it's entirely real. This book would turn me into a prepper if I knew how to do anything other than computer things. 
"First Person Singular", by Haruki Murakami.
I normally quite enjoy his short stories, but this collection... ZzzzZzzz. 
"Understanding Institutional Diversity", by Elinor Ostrom.
Dense but rewarding. There is a lot in there that can be usefully repurposed to both understand and govern collective technologies. 
"Re-Engineering Humanity", by @BrettFrischmann and @EvanSelinger.
It's impossible to summarise this book, covering so many issues, explorations, and ideas about techno-social engineering and humanity. It felt like a cheat code forward on a number of problems I'm interested in. 
Doing interdisciplinarity right is hard and the authors pulled it off (the bibliography alone is a ride). Highly recommended!
"The Uncommon Knowledge of Elinor Ostrom: Essential Lessons for Collective Action", by @ErikNordman.
A very clear and accessible blend of introduction to the commons and of a light intellectual biography of Elinor Ostrom. A great way to discover this topic and its breadth. 
"Big Data and Competition Policy", by Maurice Stucke & Allen Grunes.
Does what it says on the tin. A lot of indication that (much) stronger privacy is the only viable path to competition in data-driven markets. 
"The Smart Enough City", by @benzevgreen.
A highly relevant critique of tech, even if you're not working on urban issues.
I feel that the city folks have a better grasp of the interplay and collisions of governance & complexity with engineer superstitions of efficiency. 
The book is particularly good in showing not just how some approaches to tech go wrong but also how some projects have been successful and why. "Smart Enough" should be a guiding principle across all of tech.
"Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources", by @BrettFrischmann.
A convincing approach to infrastructure understood very generally (from roads to ecosystems and ideas) and the commons as a management strategy for it. 
I know it's Hot Infrastructure Summer but I actually picked this up to help me think about Web infrastructure (standards, browsers, the link superstructure, search & discovery...), attention commons & advertising, and collective cognitive capacity. Still digesting, but it worked!
"Tiamat's Wrath", by James S. A. Corey.
Frankly, those aliens who want to eradicate everyone might have a point.
Ready for the finale later this year! 
"Zucked", by @Moonalice.
A lucid, front seat account of how Facebook does more harm than good (and won't fix it). As someone who's been in tech 25 years but has studiously avoided the Valley, I found the historical context particularly interesting. 
I have some quibbles with a small subset of Roger's prescriptions relating to convenience or anonymity, but overall he's very right: the problem of the platforms is a battle for democracy.
"The Constant Rabbit", by @jasperfforde.
Difficile est satiram non scribere. 
"Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy", by @ghadfield.
A thoughtful look at law, grounded in history and some complexity science, and at how to improve legal infrastructure to match today's needs. 
One missing bridge is to Ostrom institutional analysis and how overlapping institutions competing (though not in a market per se) can be effective. Interesting next path to look at!
"Infomocracy", by @m_older.
In the close future, one single technocratic company organises all the world's information for everyone, and runs tech for a near-global democratic system. A smart, fast-paced sci-not-so-fi politics thriller. 
"Changing Minds and Machines", by @C___CS.
An excellent thesis, critical tech about the IETF culture. I have often found Internet governance studies to feel simplistic or at least hard to translate into change. Not this. The problems are crisp, feel both familiar and actionable. 
It's about the IETF but that doesn't mean that @w3c folks should feel smug. There are some differences, but much is the same.
The current tussle over privacy has a lot to do with a turn away from the failings of non-prescriptive approaches, but it's not everyone yet.
Having someone tell you something that's right in front of you can be illuminating, too.
Their notes on openness as a value (which is also in ISOC's invariants as the end-to-end principle) made me realise that it's likely incompatible with polycentricity. Much to ponder!
"A Memory Called Empire", by @ArkadyMartine.
Intrigue and adventure in an exquisitely detailed and interesting culture. And I wish I could write characters that came across this smart and lovable. 
"The Logic of Liberty", by Michael Polanyi.
I like the idea of seeking a logic and of focusing on public liberties, but I found the collection of texts quite uneven and often short on rigour. 
I have started putting the books in these threads in @Bookshop_Org lists (a small few are missing). You can get the 2021 crop over there: bookshop.org/lists/2021-983…
"The Collapse of Complex Societies", by Joseph A. Tainter.
A very interesting thesis and lots of supporting material, less doomgloomy than you might think. A few notes.
First, societies collapse a lot. It's kind of weird not to. Worth keeping in mind. 
Collapse isn't a switch to dystopian chaos, it's a reversal to less complex forms of social/political organisation. So not the end of the world, but you do lose the trappings of more complex society.
Collapse is also adaptive: it's the best option at that moment.
Which takes us to the heart of it: why do complex societies collapse?
Sociopolitical systems exist to solve (collective) problems. Some classes of problems require more complex systems to solve, which justifies society investing in becoming more complex. But…
There are diminishing marginal returns to increased complexity. You need to add ever more complexity in order to obtain ever slimmer benefits. This isn't sustainable.
Societies with low marginal returns on complexity are less able to cope with shocks, and risk collapsing.
That's for the thesis. I believe that it is part of the picture, but I have some doubts. Specifically, I am not convinced that it is that evident that complexity hits diminishing returns in the sort of simple linear way the book outlines.
Tainter unintentionally hints at another potential cause: as complex societies mature, their information processing becomes more centralised. That's expected: hard problem, complex solution, so increase legibility and optimise the process. Rinse, repeat.
The problem is that sustaining complex behaviour that can solve a complex problem would plausibly require a complex system to support it. That might well be how the initial solution emerged.
But if you render it legible and optimised, you're removing the complex system.
Supporting complex behaviour from a deterministic system becomes costly fast. This leads directly to diminishing returns, and even negative returns to complexity.
What's more, past a certain point, you can't just fix a complex system — it'll have to emerge again.
Anyway, "more research is needed" as one says. That is related to the points I make in berjon.com/stewardship/ if you want more speculation on this.
"The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organisations", by Wanda Orlikowski.
A great view on how people shape technology, how technology shapes them back, and how institutions emerge from the dynamic. A readable version of Giddens's structuration. 
I see Orlikowski's framework as working well with Ostrom's IAD to both understand tech institutions and how they emerge and evolve.
It also reveals the problem with tech today more clearly: the structure is more powerful than the agents, and the agents can't shape it back.
The last major system with significant emergent conventions was probably @Twitter, where users invented RTs and the like. Everything else is tightly A/B tested and controlled inside the ivory parking lots of the Valley.
(Thanks to @loganfranken for pointing me in this direction!)
"Null States", by @m_older. (Vol. 2 of the Centenal Cycle)
Loving this highly plausible dystopia in which a single entity, Information, full of smart, kind, well-meaning people, runs most of the democratic world NOBO-style ("not owned but operated"). Problems ensue! 
I was reassured in this volume to learn that there were a few privacy options, or that I could move to Switzerland.
"Leviathan Falls", by James S. A. Corey.
And it's a wrap! All I'll say is that Avasarala was right. Avasarala is always right. 
"Why Privacy Matters", by @neilmrichards.
Simply outstanding, highly recommended whether you work in privacy or are just curious. 
"The Circle" by Dave Eggers.
I wanted to return to this in preparation for The Every, which just came out.
It's as real as satire gets. I was screaming on the inside for five hundred pages. 
"How To Read Foucault" by Johanna Oksala.
My Foucault dates from my late teens and much of it was likely squandered on me. This is a clear, brisk, and pleasant path into his thinking. 