Software, the Tough Tomato Principle, and the Great Weirdening of the World

Isn't the goal to be build systems where users are able to modify and optimize the gatekeeper in the fairest way to their collective needs? The assumption that all gatekeepers are bad just feels so undergraduate at this point.

To be honest, this whole post reads like an updated version of a 'the web is going to be so neat guys' / cyber-utopian rant from 1993. If the last 5 years are teaching us anything, it's that being able to 'run your idea through a dozen filters' may not be such a bad thing.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who had that reaction. Don't get me wrong, I liked the first half of the article a lot. The exploration and discussion of coevolution principle in technology was very interesting. But the way the "software revolution" was described is extremely naive. The following are some points that stood out.

And of course, that communication is free and instantaneous regardless of its distance.

No, it isn't. It might be near-instantaneous in best case, but it sure as hell isn't free.

The gig economy worker and the digital nomad are two examples of lifestyles that are native to this new paradigm. Each just has to press a button to start making money. Each works when and from wherever they want. And each gets paid in direct proportion to their output.

This totally ignores the plethora of very real and very nasty issues plaguing the gig economy.

In practice, it means the factory no longer needs to run as slow as its slowest gear. Each gear can spin as fast as it fancies, and be rewarded according to it.

That's not how things work out in practice. The "gears" don't "spin" in isolation, so the "slowest gear" still affects the whole "factory". Worse, the competitive nature of our society turns this whole scenario into a race to the bottom.

Some will say that this measurability also comes at the cost of our privacy. But you rarely need your government-issued ID to do things online — something less true of the physical world. Software is anonymous by default.

Do we live in the same world? Sure, software itself is conceptually uninterested in identity -- which isn't the same thing as being anonymous -- but I think we've all had plenty of evidence demonstrating how software facilitates erosion of privacy.

You may not need to ask for permission to distribute your content anymore, but you do need permission to get paid. If the payment gatekeepers don’t like you, you’re outta luck.

Again, this is simplistic and naive. Cryptocurrencies cannot magically abstract away the real world. The "payment gatekeepers" are not just banks and credit card companies. There's also your government and your client's government and all the stuff that comes with them.

In short, while I agree we should be excited about technology, we really have to do a much better job of making sure it helps us.

Software makes it almost impossibly tempting to reduce human situations to factors and linear approximations. While these may often work well enough, they also fail often enough to cause trouble. Hundreds of years ago, a work was written which I believe was quoted by Donald Knuth in one of his books that I've never forgotten: "Make game of that which makes as much of thee." That, to me, sound like the most cogent advice to anyone living in the modern world. If you are seen as a factor to be manipulated, maximized, or reduced, it is only fitting, appropriate, and ultimately, moral, for you to respond in kind.