3 ms·

I think the author is strawmanning a bit here. The central premise they're attacking is that tech should not be called upon to solve social problems, and they a

I think the author is strawmanning a bit here. The central premise they're attacking is that tech should not be called upon to solve social problems, and they assume this is what the pull quote at the top is implying. They then spend the body of the essay arguing that social problems are intractable to a top down approach, technological rationality is subject to the same problems as government bureaucracy, etc. However, one could more charitably interpret the quote as saying there are lots of TECHNOLOGIES that would produce social good, which are underfunded - alternative energy, carbon capture, distributed social networking, etc. Ycombinator seems to agree, given their recent focus on nuclear.

mjb 10y ago
I think the author is right that top-down technical solutions to social problems don't work. Their examples are compelling, and more come to mind. As you say, though, that doesn't extend to the argument that technology and social good are unrelated. Companies reasonably can (and, one could argue, should) choose their investments and priorities based on their social effects and other distant externalities. There are also problems, like the social effects of climate change, that can be effectively addressed, at least partially, with technical solutions. The much more interesting question for me is whether it's ethical to invest in technologies that will cause social change, even if those changes are highly likely to be negative in the short term. The default silicon valley answer to that would be yes, but a broad range of other people would say no. Both have rational arguments. If you look at the social effects of the industrial revolution (or the green revolution, or the enlightenment) there's a lot of short-term negative for a lot of people and some enduring problems for some groups of people.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- skybrian 10y ago
  Do anti-spam, anti-malware, anti-phishing, and https-everywhere campaigns count as social change? How about moderation policies for social networks?

mjb 10y ago

I think the author is right that top-down technical solutions to social problems don't work. Their examples are compelling, and more come to mind. As you say, though, that doesn't extend to the argument that technology and social good are unrelated. Companies reasonably can (and, one could argue, should) choose their investments and priorities based on their social effects and other distant externalities. There are also problems, like the social effects of climate change, that can be effectively addressed, at least partially, with technical solutions. The much more interesting question for me is whether it's ethical to invest in technologies that will cause social change, even if those changes are highly likely to be negative in the short term. The default silicon valley answer to that would be yes, but a broad range of other people would say no. Both have rational arguments. If you look at the social effects of the industrial revolution (or the green revolution, or the enlightenment) there's a lot of short-term negative for a lot of people and some enduring problems for some groups of people.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 10y ago
Do anti-spam, anti-malware, anti-phishing, and https-everywhere campaigns count as social change? How about moderation policies for social networks?