Computers are an oppressive technology • Hacker News Board

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#141

Post by Karrot_Kream » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:19 PM UTC

trinsic2 wrote: post #140

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are. By utilizing older processes that have become more commoditized. A large part of why creating computers requires so much centralization is that the R&D (not just theoretical, but also developmen…

This is a good point. There are people that want decisions around computer technology to be humane. They form groups that change this landscape for the better, and if its revolutionary, the rest follow suit. I think that the Framework Laptop is a good example of redefining technology to improve the impact on our environment and create more freedom for people who want there devices more repairable. Its not perfect, as…

100%. Framework and the MNT Reform were what I had in mind writing the comment.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#142

Post by ByteJockey » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #139

ByteJockey wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that puts implacable emotionless code in the driving seat, and the article explains very eloquently why that's a bad thing. To re-iterate my previous point, putting code in the driver's seat would imply that something like the etherium network decides what transactions to make (or possibly entering into their flavor of smart contracts by itself). I have not heard of any proposals for this.

That's literally what a smart contract is. From the Etherium website: "Smart contracts are a type of Ethereum account. This means they have a balance and they can send transactions over the network. However they're not controlled by a user, instead they are deployed to the network and run as programmed. User accounts can then interact with a smart contract by submitting transactions that execute a function defined on…

> how is that not putting code in the driver's seat?

Because humans enter into them.

What you're describing is not a problem of the code making decisions for people, it's a problem of people not being able to back out of something once they've made the decision.

I think there's definitely an argument around if this is worth it or not, but it's a different issue. An issue that's akin to many decisions in real life. To take a dramatic example, this is akin to firing a gun. Once fired, a bullet cannot be taken back, but the bullet is not in control, but it is a situation created entirely by human agency.

I suppose the devs who create the software we're talking about would have some agency in the previous scenarios. But I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if the people in, say, the train car were entirely the devs that wrote the train car door automation software.

I guess the distinction I'm trying to make is people being forced into a situation vs people voluntarily entering a situation (even if they might not be happy with the situation later). In the former situation, I'd describe that as people not being in control, in the latter I'd describe the people involved as being in control.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#143

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #89

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computers are neutral technology. Don't make me tap the sign: Technology. Is. Not. Neutral. A shame so few technophiles have read Jacques Ellul[1]. Ellul's La Technique (and his later "Propaganda") should be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about systems. Be careful though, this thinker/philosopher has verbalized a problem that made Ted Kaczinsky conclude the only solution is for us as a species to retreat int…

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…

so this is a review of a review + your conclusion that you disagree? a shame you didn't read it because it is less about machines but about systems (la technique) and systems thinking. There is a whole chapter on Propaganda which he expands on in a later book.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#144

Post by southerntofu » Sun, Jun 19, 2022, 8:36 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #105

southerntofu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's precisely what the parent comment was being ironic about. We built industry to evade natural conditions, but through mass industrialization and planned obsolescence we're actually pushing nature to eradicate us all (and millions of other species alongside). Aren't you two saying the same thing?

This is definitely not what I was saying. What I was saying is that I live in a house with a roof and electric lighting, and use modern medicine. The key word was "struggle".

Sorry for misinterpreting your message! Although i don't understand what "opposite" direction means in said message given your explanation.

Re: Computers are an oppressive technology

#145

Post by seebs » Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 1:35 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #47

jazzyjackson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tools are not neutral: they favor that which they make easier

Tools define a relationship with the entity being tooled, so you can learn a lot about the goals and values of the transactions by looking at the kinds of relationships that are/aren't implied. You can't feed people with an AR-15. The metaphors that define computing are all about abstraction, automation without human input, predictability, and control. Abstraction tends to lossy and context-insensitive, which is why…

Okay, but consider that I might be better off with a machine that approves or disapproves based on credit history and credit score than a banker who won't lend to me unless I get my husband's signature because he doesn't think women should be making choices about money without their husband's approval. (But who wouldn't even blink at loaning money to a man without his wife's signature.)