Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computers are an oppressive technology

devever.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#121

Post by PontifexMinimus »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #12

This oppressiveness is not inherent to computers, it's inherent to the people and institutions making use of them. The examples in the article say it all: government bureaucracies, beverage dispensers. They own the computers and impose their own rules on us, rules like deadlines and brand checking. We don't want these rules but they impose it on us all the same. Computers are neutral technology. It's just that we are…

> We no longer define our choices, we choose among the options they provide for us. Freely programmable computers are actually quite powerful and subversive which is why there are constant attempts to control them [...] Computing freedom is therefore against their agendas

Yes, exactly.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#122

Post by [deleted] »

scaramanga wrote: post #38
simonh wrote: post #22

A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. No explanation or exploration of why that might be the case, given the preceding damning indictment of the principles such technologies are based on. Very odd. As to the broader issue, I agree with those here pointing out that indifference…

Right, I found the ending of the article to be baffling non sequiturs about the greatness of bitcoin. > Our systems of values, and traits such as love and empathy are evolved behaviours. They were selected for by those same implacable laws of nature and survival of the fittest. I think this is undoubtedly true, but it is also true of psychopathy. I think that the ability to construct a false self, as a defensive mech…

[deleted]

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#123

Post by ryukafalz »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #69
fsflover wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why free software was invented, which respects its users: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/why-free-software-is-more-impo... .

It's odd for an article like this to make absolutely no mention of Free Software, but it's not really using oppressive in the sense the Free Software movement uses it. The point of the article boils down to something like this: Pre-AI computers are very literal and show no judgement or discernment in their rule-following. They are inevitably used to implement complex systems against which users have little recourse,…

> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours

Partly, but this example was also used as well:

> Though perhaps unlikely, my hyper-awareness of the sinister ruthlessness of machines in the ordinary things around us led me immediately to note the pathological outcome: Someone stuck on a desert island (or equivalent) who starves to death, because the only food they have is expired Juicero juice bags and a machine which refuses to serve them. While in Juicero's case this might seem like a comical example, I fully believe it's only a matter of time until something like this happens. The deliberate utilisation of machine-assisted ruthlessness to malevolent ends becomes more and more common with every passing day, as companies realise they can escape from accountability by hiding behind the facelessness of the machine, which disempowers the individual to fight or object to it. The now memetic expression, “computer says no”, pithily expresses this phenomenon.

…which is precisely the usual free software issue. The Juicero is a computer you own, but that does not serve your interests.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#124

Post by efficientsticks »

simonh wrote: post #118
efficientsticks wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that things should be considered ultimately as political (even judicial if needed). But it’s not a given - Black Mirror describes worlds in which that reality does not win a survival-of-the-fittest competition against harsher technological regimes. It seems every time we describe these dystopias they become true, which for me is a reflection that it’s easier to destroy than to create, absent a learned culture…

I’m not so pessimistic, all this means is that freedoms must be actively fought for and maintained. That they cannot be taken for granted. However we have many times fought against supposedly more efficient autocratic systems and won. Napoleonic imperialism, and that of the great Central European powers of WW2, Fascism, Stalinism, South American military dictatorships. We’ve beaten them all. A successor to Maoism is…

Thanks for this great reply.

Ironic thing though - that 10% most severe poverty mostly lies on the African continent, exactly the place which could stand to benefit the most from China’s intervening, and of course before that it was Chinese people who were in great poverty.

Now I’m as aghast at the militant astro-turfing by that country on these forums as anyone else (and much worse inside), but there I’m not so pessimistic, perhaps seeing their own positive change effected on an outside group can cause some kind of re-evaluation for the culture.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#125

Post by laboo »

I have always seen this in opposite direction.

Computers shut the door on all human skulduggery. Humans are terrible at arbitrating fairness. Even when they think they're being fair, they are not.

Why are you only considering the upside of having humans in the loop, having the heart to wait the extra second for the filing? What about the human that looks you up and down before making that decision? What about the human that wants a bribe to take your filing? What about the human that's in good or bad mood?

Your conception of humanity is off.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#126

Post by jen20 »

atoav wrote: post #102
jen20 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas chambers are widely used for sterilising materials going into clean rooms for compounding of medicines. While this does meet the definition of “one more thing”, it is rather an important one.

With showerheads?

Not that I've seen. Nothing about the phrase "gas chamber" to anyone knowledgeable about pharmaceutical equipment suggests shower heads though - it's a simple case of you attempting to move the goalposts to support a bad argument.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#127

Post by presentation »

drhodes wrote: post #103
liminvorous wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether computers count as ruthless depends on fine details of your definition of ruthless. 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. If you just mean acting without consideration of how their their actions will affect people then computers fit this definition of ruthless perfectly by virtue of…

> because we don’t know how to program them to consider how their actions will affect other people. We don't have to. For example, a ruthless train door could be made less ruthless, by having sensors that respond to someone who is nanoseconds late, to open the door, just that once, just like it's elevator door brethren, but only once. The problem is that "inherently opportunistic people" will take advantage of the ma…

But doing so isn’t the default state for computers. Someone needs to think about that, and put effort into building that. Making it so that some concerned citizen that wants to make the system less ruthless, also demands the instrumentation of the system to allow for that, cooperation between all parties to facilitate such changes - it doesn’t happen by default. So while it’s possible to make a system not behave ruthlessly with enough effort, it is default ruthless, for better or worse.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#128

Post by astrostl »

> All transactions are final; none can be reversed. It does not matter if your coins were stolen, or if your family will come to ruin because of it; the system does not care. There can be no exceptions. If we desire a system of absolute integrity, we must accept these outcomes as the cost.

[gestures broadly at hard forks] it ain't easy to reach quorum, but it is possible.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#129

Post by MaxBarraclough »

ryukafalz wrote: post #123
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd for an article like this to make absolutely no mention of Free Software, but it's not really using oppressive in the sense the Free Software movement uses it. The point of the article boils down to something like this: Pre-AI computers are very literal and show no judgement or discernment in their rule-following. They are inevitably used to implement complex systems against which users have little recourse,…

> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours Partly, but this example was also used as well: > Though perhaps unlikely, my hyper-awareness of the sinister ruthlessness of machines in the ordinary things around us led me immediately to note the pathological outcome: Someone stuck on a desert island (or equivalent) who starves to death, because the only food the…

Yes, good point.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#130

Post by nonrandomstring »

Msw242 wrote: post #116
nonrandomstring wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This oppressiveness is not inherent to computers Absolutely. I vehemently disagree with this essay. One of the reasons I am a passionate technology critic and sceptic is that I love technology and feel disgusted at the way it's co-opted and abused. I am always vigilant not to become jaded or lose sight of the immense positive possibilities for digital technologies. But I sincerely believe that before that can happe…

The more neutral/academic term (instead of techno-fascism) is "algorithmic control" Plenty of great reading: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=alg...

Or cybernetic governance.

Although I am not sure that captures the problem of technofascism.

Algorithmic/Cybernetic Governance is not malicious. It's just stupid. It's a mistake made by well meaning but misguided and poorly read people who have a vicariously omnipotent fantasy that machines can run things. Ultimately it's their intent to step back and bask in an autonomous land of milk, honey, magical plenitude and obedience.

Technofascism has a malicious and power hungry side. For that lot, computers are simple weapons of enslavement.

I also think the Cyberneticians are more honest and open, They really believe in their ambitious but naive vision. The technofascists are duplicitous. They know people won't buy their control fetish, so spend a lot more on presentation, sugar frosting, and outright lies about the "benefits of digital technology", and their own intentions.

Post reply on HN