Computers are an oppressive technology

> If you mean the mental/emotional state necessary for a human to act without regard for consequences of their actions to other people, then computers are not ruthless.

I don't understand, what am I missing?

I've never seen a computer have any regard for the consequences of its decisions. Computers are thus completely ruthless.

The oppressiveness described by the article is not about computers, but about rigid design — design with few affordances. Or, design with missing affordances — affordances that intuitively should exist but do not, due to various material or intellectual constraints when designing the thing.

Which leads me to disagree with the article that computers are inherently oppressive. Because with more resources, we can design computers with more and better affordances.

The best thing about this topic I've read is an article by Melvin Kranzberg as "Kranzberg's laws" https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385 .

There are six laws.

1) Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.

2) Invention is the mother of necessity.

3) Technology comes in packages, big and small.

4) Although technology might be a prime element in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions.

5) All history is relevant, but the history of technology is the most relevant.

6) Technology is a very human activity-and so is the history of technology.

Is mathematics an inherently oppressive study? Computers are simply tools for performing mathematical calculations, a very fancy abacus, if you will. The fact that humans use them as a tool for oppressing other humans is nothing to do with the nature of the computer, and everything to do with the nature of human societies.

Is paper an inherently oppressive technology because it was used to hold rules and contracts which bind people? How about trains, airplanes, automobiles, or rockets?

Are horses inherently oppressive animals because they were used by Genghis Khan to sweep the world with his armies? Is wheat an inherently oppressive plant because it enabled the rise of unequal societies with division of labor? Are dogs evil symbols of oppression for their many nefarious uses?

A 500+ page book is beyond most peoples tree time to explore from a comments faith alone so here's a summary I found (the quality of which is unknown) since I'm always interested to some degree in new perspectives (https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summa...):

While Ellul separates technique from the individual machines that contribute to its reign, he maintains that machines represent an ideal state for the forces that govern technique. Humans, on the other hand, are not ideal at all. We lack the efficiency and predictability of machines. Therefore, Ellul says, technique is the social adaptation that exists in transforming the messy lives of humans so that they better fit into a world controlled by machinery. Further, in a somewhat terrifying turn of phrase, he adds that technique is "the consciousness of the mechanized world."

So humans adapt to technology and as technology becomes more efficient we just become cogs of technology is the core principle here and I can see how this relationship could be thought to arise however I completely disagree with it. Technology does enable efficiency at a fundamental level but it's not that humans become slaves to the efficiency or technique, it's that some humans chose to force other humans into increasingly more efficient means.

There is some feedback relation here in that in a global competitive environment as leaders around the world continue to compete in various forms they will inherently drive their populations into deeper efficiency I believe but the rise to all of this is because of the global competitive environment. It's largely social constructs and to some degree, finite resources that drive these behaviors and lead to efficiency focus. More than anything it's greed and hunger for power that drives this nonsense.

Most humans recognize when their lives become dominated by some silly efficiency and don't care to follow suit. Their want autonomy, to own their life and own their choices. They're instead forced into "the technique" so to speak as a secondary effect. The underlying effect is what needs to be rutted out, technology isn't the fundamental issue here, it's a set of human behaviors and institutions that exist and enable them.