4 ms·

Why Developers are so Important

16 points by cjoh 16y ago

Empact 16y ago
I certainly see myself in this description. I started working on http://votereports.org/ http://votereports.org/ because I wanted to perform the basic civic duty of voting, which is expected of every adult in the country, without the superhuman requirement of scrutinizing all the bills and tabulating the votes individually, which I wouldn't wish on anyone. And by creating the tool for others as well there's a real chance it can make a structural change in the popular literacy of legislative/political accountability - reducing the role of yard signs, hypocrisy and party politics, and increasing the role of issues and legislation. Incidentally, please do message me if you're interested in the project. We've got a lot to do between now and November.
alsomike 16y ago
This is certainly true, which is why the libertarian bent of some developers who disavow any notion of social responsibility is so disturbing.
- Empact 16y ago
  Aren't you conflating ethics with politics? It seems having a personal notion of social responsibility is quite distinct from wanting that notion imposed on all people by the state.
  - alsomike 16y ago
    Social responsibility needs to be imposed on those in positions of power. Or would you rather we trust elites on their assurance that they are good and kind and just? That's how the old feudal monarchies used to work.
    - Empact 16y ago
      Historically, as with feudal society, hasn't the government itself been a major source of elite abusers? And today, see the military industrial complex, corporatism, or the prison industrial complex (e.g. California prison guard unions). In my opinion, placing your faith in either elites or government is a mistake. Rather, the goal is to create a decentralized system of accountability, whereby the interplay of forces punish and deter foul play. Government is a player in that, so are the elites, so are we.
      - alsomike 16y ago
        Despite all the enthusiasm around decentralization, I think it's a failed option. It creates the illusion that power doesn't exist, when it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight. I've written about that here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389356 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389356 I agree on accountability. There will always be elites and the people need strong collective institutions to hold them accountable. The fact that government hasn't always acted in our interest is no reason to hand over everything to the elites.
        Empact 16y ago
        Re. Decentralization, you say: It creates the illusion that power doesn't exist, when it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight. So, a thought experiment is in order, consider the following scenarios, re. restaurants: * there only is a single restaurant allowed * there are multiple restaurants, but they jealously prevent any new entrants * there is a dynamic market of restaurants, which survive or close based on the patronage of individual diners In each case, power is more decentralized, from an individual institution, to a cabal of institutions, to a set of institutions selected by individual patrons. Now, you could say that in the last case, there are still elites, there are those who can spend more money, and there are the restaurant owners who exercise power over their own establishments. But is it reasonable to say, re. power that: "it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight"? Is monopoly or oligopoly power indistinguishable from market power? You give the example with restaurant reviews, saying that individual control of reviews would still leave power to aggregators. But isn't it equally open to all aggregators, just as the latter restaurant market is open to those who can start a restaurant and attract a clientele? In decentralization, are we really not also seeing the diminishing ability to exercise arbitrary power?

16 points by cjoh 16y ago

I certainly see myself in this description. I started working on http://votereports.org/ http://votereports.org/ because I wanted to perform the basic civic duty of voting, which is expected of every adult in the country, without the superhuman requirement of scrutinizing all the bills and tabulating the votes individually, which I wouldn't wish on anyone. And by creating the tool for others as well there's a real chance it can make a structural change in the popular literacy of legislative/political accountability - reducing the role of yard signs, hypocrisy and party politics, and increasing the role of issues and legislation. Incidentally, please do message me if you're interested in the project. We've got a lot to do between now and November.

alsomike 16y ago

This is certainly true, which is why the libertarian bent of some developers who disavow any notion of social responsibility is so disturbing.

Empact 16y ago
Aren't you conflating ethics with politics? It seems having a personal notion of social responsibility is quite distinct from wanting that notion imposed on all people by the state.
- alsomike 16y ago
  Social responsibility needs to be imposed on those in positions of power. Or would you rather we trust elites on their assurance that they are good and kind and just? That's how the old feudal monarchies used to work.
  - Empact 16y ago
    Historically, as with feudal society, hasn't the government itself been a major source of elite abusers? And today, see the military industrial complex, corporatism, or the prison industrial complex (e.g. California prison guard unions). In my opinion, placing your faith in either elites or government is a mistake. Rather, the goal is to create a decentralized system of accountability, whereby the interplay of forces punish and deter foul play. Government is a player in that, so are the elites, so are we.
    - alsomike 16y ago
      Despite all the enthusiasm around decentralization, I think it's a failed option. It creates the illusion that power doesn't exist, when it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight. I've written about that here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389356 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389356 I agree on accountability. There will always be elites and the people need strong collective institutions to hold them accountable. The fact that government hasn't always acted in our interest is no reason to hand over everything to the elites.
      - Empact 16y ago
        Re. Decentralization, you say: It creates the illusion that power doesn't exist, when it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight. So, a thought experiment is in order, consider the following scenarios, re. restaurants: * there only is a single restaurant allowed * there are multiple restaurants, but they jealously prevent any new entrants * there is a dynamic market of restaurants, which survive or close based on the patronage of individual diners In each case, power is more decentralized, from an individual institution, to a cabal of institutions, to a set of institutions selected by individual patrons. Now, you could say that in the last case, there are still elites, there are those who can spend more money, and there are the restaurant owners who exercise power over their own establishments. But is it reasonable to say, re. power that: "it's only been hidden, making it harder to fight"? Is monopoly or oligopoly power indistinguishable from market power? You give the example with restaurant reviews, saying that individual control of reviews would still leave power to aggregators. But isn't it equally open to all aggregators, just as the latter restaurant market is open to those who can start a restaurant and attract a clientele? In decentralization, are we really not also seeing the diminishing ability to exercise arbitrary power?