3 ms·

My problem with these sorts of screeds is that they treat all techies as complicit. It’s really a problem of big tech companies, and the big tech companies have

by Decade 10y ago

My problem with these sorts of screeds is that they treat all techies as complicit. It’s really a problem of big tech companies, and the big tech companies have so much power because there is money in it, and they have the money because humans choose it. We individually chose to give our freedoms to huge corporations with unfriendly designs for our lives. It’s not like we couldn’t see it coming. Stallman, for example, has always argued against use of Facebook and similar services.[0] It’s just that it’s much easier to run centralized services, so they improve, they create better user experiences, and they draw in even more cash, while decentralized Free Software struggles to get enough attention to stay in business. I, for one, didn’t get a Facebook until a critical mass of my friends got one, and I didn’t get a LinkedIn until a government agency refused to give me service without one. I tried to avoid the surveillance state, but it’s very difficult to function in society without it. Especially if you don’t have some sort of fan club to support you, like Stallman has. [0]https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://stallman.org/facebook.html

garysieling 10y ago
While it doesn't directly address how to fix this type of problem, I found the book "Moral Man and Immoral Society" to be a helpful discussion of how we make ethical decisions individually vs. in groups (the thesis being justice is nearly impossible to achieve in group actions).
fatbird 10y ago
You say "because humans choose it" as if it counters the author's point, but in your last paragraph you perfectly describe how we don't freely choose it; instead, some happily choose it and others must later surrender to it as a condition of normal participation in modern life. This is "choice" only in a meaninglessly narrow sense. Maciej's point is that we blithely build these systems because TECHNOLOGY--we lionize the builders of these systems--that we later complain about being forced to participate in because they've been successful. This is the circumstance that our refusal to engage in politics creates for us and everyone else, and we bear responsibility for that.
laughinghan 10y ago
If you believe a large fraction of techies are not complicit and in fact are very against these unfriendly designs, then do you agree with the solution proposed by the author—just like the solution to the problem of unsafe working conditions—namely, regulation? After all, if a large fraction of techies are against this, there's political will, right? Sure, in your worldview the big tech companies have too much money and power, but why would it be so much more asymmetrical than the unsafe factory days as to require a qualitatively different solution? > I tried to avoid the surveillance state, but it’s very difficult to function in society without it. The author made this point, too, and connected it with the point about unsafe working conditions and how it is theoretically opt-in but in practice a highly-discouraged opt-out, which I thought was poignant, especially because it suggests an easy-to-understand (though difficult-to-implement) solution: regulation. Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm#six_fixes http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you....
- Decade 10y ago
  > Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.... Yeah, I’m not so sure that regulations will work all that well. They tend to entrench incumbents and squash innovation. He points to Europe for regulations not working correctly, and I think it’s amazing that Google has greater market share over there than anywhere else. You would hope that European pride and resourcefulness would promote homegrown search engines. Nope, the major alternatives outside the US are protected by totalitarian regimes, and Europe tries to regulate Google, instead. For example, right to download, right to delete, would only work if you are definitely identified. Current tracking is probabilistic, supposedly anonymized. In an ideal world, right to delete would mean no more tracking that you haven’t opted in. In the real world, I expect that right to delete would mean you need to be logged in and tracked even more closely. That’s certainly appealing to the “anti-terror” interests, too. A big difference of computing versus other tech is just the amount of leverage that is possible. Mark Zuckerberg was making a web site to connect classmates, and then it was connecting all the universities, and in no time he’s the #6 richest person according to Forbes. When he started, I don’t think this is how he thought he would end up. He has simply been guided by his morality of creepy openness. The amount of change that we’re capable of creating is beyond our comprehension, and I think it’s unfair to judge our industry by the disaster stories that make it to public consciousness.
neilk 10y ago
What government agency required a LinkedIn account?

by Decade 10y ago

garysieling 10y ago

While it doesn't directly address how to fix this type of problem, I found the book "Moral Man and Immoral Society" to be a helpful discussion of how we make ethical decisions individually vs. in groups (the thesis being justice is nearly impossible to achieve in group actions).

fatbird 10y ago

You say "because humans choose it" as if it counters the author's point, but in your last paragraph you perfectly describe how we don't freely choose it; instead, some happily choose it and others must later surrender to it as a condition of normal participation in modern life. This is "choice" only in a meaninglessly narrow sense. Maciej's point is that we blithely build these systems because TECHNOLOGY--we lionize the builders of these systems--that we later complain about being forced to participate in because they've been successful. This is the circumstance that our refusal to engage in politics creates for us and everyone else, and we bear responsibility for that.

laughinghan 10y ago

If you believe a large fraction of techies are not complicit and in fact are very against these unfriendly designs, then do you agree with the solution proposed by the author—just like the solution to the problem of unsafe working conditions—namely, regulation? After all, if a large fraction of techies are against this, there's political will, right? Sure, in your worldview the big tech companies have too much money and power, but why would it be so much more asymmetrical than the unsafe factory days as to require a qualitatively different solution? > I tried to avoid the surveillance state, but it’s very difficult to function in society without it. The author made this point, too, and connected it with the point about unsafe working conditions and how it is theoretically opt-in but in practice a highly-discouraged opt-out, which I thought was poignant, especially because it suggests an easy-to-understand (though difficult-to-implement) solution: regulation. Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm#six_fixes http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you....

Decade 10y ago
> Note that he's not just handwaving in the magic word "regulation", he has a concrete proposal for six specific, privacy-protecting rules: http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you.... Yeah, I’m not so sure that regulations will work all that well. They tend to entrench incumbents and squash innovation. He points to Europe for regulations not working correctly, and I think it’s amazing that Google has greater market share over there than anywhere else. You would hope that European pride and resourcefulness would promote homegrown search engines. Nope, the major alternatives outside the US are protected by totalitarian regimes, and Europe tries to regulate Google, instead. For example, right to download, right to delete, would only work if you are definitely identified. Current tracking is probabilistic, supposedly anonymized. In an ideal world, right to delete would mean no more tracking that you haven’t opted in. In the real world, I expect that right to delete would mean you need to be logged in and tracked even more closely. That’s certainly appealing to the “anti-terror” interests, too. A big difference of computing versus other tech is just the amount of leverage that is possible. Mark Zuckerberg was making a web site to connect classmates, and then it was connecting all the universities, and in no time he’s the #6 richest person according to Forbes. When he started, I don’t think this is how he thought he would end up. He has simply been guided by his morality of creepy openness. The amount of change that we’re capable of creating is beyond our comprehension, and I think it’s unfair to judge our industry by the disaster stories that make it to public consciousness.

neilk 10y ago

What government agency required a LinkedIn account?