Technorealism (1998)
technorealism.org
Technorealism (1998)
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#2Note that the page and site material was first published in 1998, though it's been updated since. Dating the submission is somewhat complicated in this context.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#3Wow.. This reads like a list of my top-5 pet peeves/recurring frustrations with prevailing opinions. Maybe throw something in there about the value of journalism and how the guy ranting straight-to-webcam on twitch isn’t going to be a comprehensive replacement for your local paper.
…then I saw the date and now I’m wondering how likely it is that this was the first text I ever read on the internet, and if my brain might be using a strict first-come-first-serve policy for hot takes.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#4> 1. Technologies are not neutral.
> (...) It is important for each of us to consider the biases of various technologies _and to seek out those that reflect our values and aspirations._
(emphasis added)
This couldn't have aged better. I'd argue the issue is with finding anything that doesn't reflect your ML-inferred "values and aspirations", at least when lurking on the big platforms.
> 4. Information is not knowledge.
> We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring or distributing information quickly with the more daunting task of converting it into knowledge and wisdom.
This is very important, and I wish I had learned this much sooner. Chul-Han, who was featured around here a few days ago, devotes a lot of attention to this point in several books. I wish I had grasped this earlier TBH.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#5Most of those statements are really silly. How do those people got to think and make claims like they have some authority over those issues?
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#6Most of those statements are really silly. How do those people got to think and make claims like they have some authority over those issues?
Which ones in particular do you disagree with and why?
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#7Most of those statements are really silly. How do those people got to think and make claims like they have some authority over those issues?
It's a manifesto. They are saying "We are X, and here is what we believe". Anyone can do that, no authority required.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#8One of the authors (Andrew L. Shapiro) wrote the 1999 book The Control Revolution. It's something of a sibling to Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Shapiro was a student of Lessig's), though its focus is somewhat different.
The first part reads (intentionally) archingly technophillic. That's balanced by the following sections.
The number of currently-extant issues identified with piercing accuracy is ... large. I strongly recommend the book.
David Shenk's Data Smog is similarly pioneering and insightful.
Other signers are better known. Douglas Rushkoff's current project is his Team Human podcast, he's also known for his book Cyberia, both of which are strongly critical of tech trends since the late 1990s. Steven Johnson has written several books on technology. Paulina Borsook wrote Cyberselfish.
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#9Note that the page and site material was first published in 1998, though it's been updated since. Dating the submission is somewhat complicated in this context.
[deleted]
Re: Technorealism (1998)
#10Note that the page and site material was first published in 1998, though it's been updated since. Dating the submission is somewhat complicated in this context.
archive.org has a pretty good collection of snapshots for this site, going back to Dec 1998 (I'm guessing ~6 months after it was first published based on the Mar 12, 1998 date on the site).
https://web.archive.org/web/19981212033307/https://www.techn...
The bullet points are exactly the same 24 years later, but I didn't check to confirm that the text under the bullet points is the same.