11 ms·

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have a

Well, it's not the smartphone that's the problem. The smartphone is just the delivery system. It's remarkable how well some of Richard Stallman's quotes have aged. "With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users..." The idea of a program controlling its users must have seemed very esoteric when that quote was first penned in 1985, at a time when home PCs (let alone ones with GUIs) were exotic: the first Mac had launched only a year ago. By the time I first heard of Stallman's ideas in the '90s, I was surrounded by PCs with GUIs, but still didn't get it. Now here we are, 30 years later. The first thing most of us do when we wake up is roll over, grab our phone, and look at some software. The existential costs of the non-free software are so high that we read new stories about them in the media every week, and the tech revolution's architects are banning the products they built from their own homes. For the less frequently cited ending to Stallman's quote is this: "...If the program controls the users, and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of unjust power."

andrei_says_ 9y ago
Thank you for this. Putting Stallman’s quote in context helps me see how forward his thinking is and how important the distribution of power and consent can be in software. I see a parallel with food companies spending money on researching and marketing foods that are more addictive and more profitable. Yes, people do “want” addictive foods, but that’s not the type of want we want empowered; rather it is a hook into addiction and transfer of power by inducing an addiction.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  I was one who thought Stallman was just weird and obsessive way back when. I can't same I'm a devout follower, but I admit I was wrong about him. He had incredible foresight and was absolutely, insanely ahead of his time. He was providing solutions for problems 30 years before we could even realize we had them.
  - intended 9y ago
    I disagree with the insanely/adjectives. This makes it seem that the current problems are greater than they are, beyond the ken of mortal humans.
- endgame 9y ago
  Junk food messes with what you want, despite you wanting to want different things.
yoz-y 9y ago
I don’t know. I think the Stallman quote can be read in two ways. Either the control is about free software (which is what I suppose he meant). In this case it would mean that if you can not read and modify the source code of your program then you are its instrument. I can't agree with this. For me there is little difference in end result for most users between not being able and not being capable of modifying the software. The other way to read this would be about how the program is used. If my morning starts with my phone telling me it is not going to rain and i go out into a downpour without an umbrella then I put too much confidence into the algorithm. This could get much worse though.
- apatters 9y ago
  If the software has a free license, then someone can fork it, and provide an alternative that's less abusive. Of course, unless you're making the modifications personally, you'll need to trust the developers behind the new project. But at least their work is free software too. That means it can be audited publicly, so for instance you can always find out why their news feed algorithm shows you some stories and not others. And if they get too abusive, someone might come along and fork them. In this sense free software's main benefit is that it lowers (though doesn't eliminate) switching costs. Businesses have been well aware of this advantage since Microsoft's abuses in the '90s, and that's a big reason much of the software in use today is free. Consumers, though, haven't learned this lesson yet. Now, I certainly don't think free software is the complete and only solution. It strikes me that the bigger issue is trust and where we place it. For most of human history the face we looked at when we first woke up was of the person we loved most in the world. Now it's Apple or Google, who by their nature as publicly traded companies actually _can_ be trusted to act in a certain manner, but certainly not in a manner that puts our best interests first.
ekianjo 9y ago
Control at the time of the quote is not at all what you interpret it to be now. Control for RMS was control on how you can modify the software or share it. It had very little to do with mind control per se. Context matters.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  I think that misrepresents Stallman's concerns. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html for instance. It is clear that free software is a tool for political ends not merely an end in itself.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    That piece is from 1997. RMS 10 years before that had a much more down to earth concern about software. Like everyone he has evolved in his thinking.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      Why has it stayed up on gnu.org if it no longer supports his/their philosophy?
fortani 9y ago
Agreed. The problem here is not the smartphone per se, but our increasing dependence on it and the "outsourcing" of our thinking and desires to our smartphone. Imagine the follow scenario: * Need to get to a place? Just ask Google Maps, no need to think. * Need to decide what and where to eat? Don't need to think, just use an app that optimizes for health/variety/preferences/budget and you don't even need to leave the house, just it delivered right to your doorstep. * Need to think deeply about something? Just Google for the right articles. No need to waste time thinking. * Feeling bored? Just consume a game, song, movie, Reddit/Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc. * Don't know what to do next week? Have an app that auto-suggests what you can do based on your preferences, your friends' schedules, activities in your city, past user ratings for an event, etc. Taking this further, have an AI virtual assistant that plans your entire year's activities. * Need to date someone? Use an AI virtual assistant (built with the latest in Natural Language Processing and AI technology that optimizes for the right words to use, the correct responses, the best times to send a message, the best jokes to be using, the best emotions to elicit) that has already done all the swiping on Tinder/OKCupid and done all the texting conversations to set you up on a date. When this point in the future arrives, without a smartphone, you would become almost feel like an empty shell (or even suicidal). Your very existence becomes tied in to the smartphone. Your daily whims/desires becomes dependent on the smartphone. If you were given a life sentence: give up an arm or a leg, or give up the right to own or use a smartphone for life. I think increasingly in time, people would rather give up an arm or a leg than give up a smartphone for life. The question then becomes: Do you own a smartphone, or does the smartphone own you?
- alansammarone 9y ago
  I don't think all of these are a problem per se. The problem is (and probably always was) people with empty minds. Sure, now they can fill it more easily with junk, but the whole point of technology is to make life easier after all. If you're learning or working on something you love and you want to have more time to do, its a perfectly reasonable choice to outsource "what I'm I going to eat next" or "how do you I get from A to B". The problem is not having anything that you love to learn/work on.
  - 9y ago
deepGem 9y ago
If the program controls the users, and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of unjust power. I'd modify this statement as the program can potentially be an instrument of unjust power. I like to believe that the opposite of this will most likely occur. What if such a program manipulates people's minds towards the good, what if it can turn terrorists against terrorism. Whenever we think of something outside our brain taking control of our lives, we only think of negative outcomes. Why not positive ones ? Sure distraction is bad, but how bad ? I don't buy the argument that the short doses of of social media engagement is equivalent to consuming heroin or smoking. It is an addiction for sure, but why is addiction bad ? All through history, we have always looked for means of getting high - from alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and what not. Ever since we discovered that we can get high, we have embarked on finding new means that can give us that high. Why do people want to be rich ? So that they can show off. Showing off is an addiction. Social media is just making that addiction available to every one. To use some silicon valley terminology, social media is democratizing showing off and we are just getting started :). I say this because, Whenever we friends got together for a beer or a social hangout, most of the conversation, at least 50% drift around to showing off. So I've realized that social media has just become an extension of our behavior. It has become just a tool to express our collective narcissism. The root cause of the addiction is not social media, it's our own self. I am generalizing, and there are many many exceptions to the above stated collective behavior.
- amazingman 9y ago
  I think you’re fundamentally failing to interact with the scale of the problems arising from the attention economy, basically handwaving with the word “just”. Even if I were to grant—though I don’t—your claim that addiction isn’t necessarily bad, it wouldn’t follow that it’s perfectly fine for businesses to boundlessly seek more effective ways to capture more human attention more of the time. ”Just” run the simulation in your head, and gradually turn up parameters such as: - amount/quality of information about how the human brain works - % of humans addicted to addicting-by-design software experiences - number of unethical people who realize the financial and political opportunity a pathologically distracted electorate presents And then maybe take another look at what’s happening in our world today.
musage 9y ago
> The first thing most of us do when we wake up is roll over, grab our phone, and look at some software The danger of computers becoming like humans is not as great as the danger of humans becoming like computers. -- Konrad Zuse I recall Joseph Weizenbaum mentioning something like that in an interview before his death, too, about the difference between using technology to empower people, or to exploit them. But hey, Wikipedia so what do they know... ask the mediocre for permission to learn from the great at your own peril, that's my motto.
- panic 9y ago
  Joseph Weizenbaum's book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation (https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Power-Human-Reason-Calculation/dp/0716704633 https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Power-Human-Reason-Calculati...) is worth a read. Weizenbaum had written ELIZA, the original "chatbot", a decade earlier (in 1966), and was worried by how much people imputed "thought" to its simple programming. The book addresses this same topic: to what extent is computer "thought" like human "thought", and what are the dangers of equating these concepts? Like any book about AI written in the 70's, there are some things that are obviously out of date or wrong, but overall it holds up quite well. There's also a section on "compulsive programmers" that may cause some self-reflection among this crowd: https://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/Pages/Hester_James/HACKER.htm https://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/P...
hellbanner 9y ago
Ah, yes "Program or Be Programmed" "When humans learned to read, they also learned to write" Now humans learn how to click without learning how to code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgicuytCkoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgicuytCkoY trailer for the book "10 commandments for a digital age"
deevolution 9y ago
Couldnt agree more with that you said. Desktops/laptops are very different mechanisms for delivering content. Its alot harder to be the one in control when using a smartphone because of how closed off the app ecosystem is. Its very difficult to mod the software on phones compared to on a desktop/laptop. Cellphones are instruments of control. Laptops and computers are instruments of creation.

andrei_says_ 9y ago

Thank you for this. Putting Stallman’s quote in context helps me see how forward his thinking is and how important the distribution of power and consent can be in software. I see a parallel with food companies spending money on researching and marketing foods that are more addictive and more profitable. Yes, people do “want” addictive foods, but that’s not the type of want we want empowered; rather it is a hook into addiction and transfer of power by inducing an addiction.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
I was one who thought Stallman was just weird and obsessive way back when. I can't same I'm a devout follower, but I admit I was wrong about him. He had incredible foresight and was absolutely, insanely ahead of his time. He was providing solutions for problems 30 years before we could even realize we had them.
- intended 9y ago
  I disagree with the insanely/adjectives. This makes it seem that the current problems are greater than they are, beyond the ken of mortal humans.
endgame 9y ago
Junk food messes with what you want, despite you wanting to want different things.

yoz-y 9y ago

I don’t know. I think the Stallman quote can be read in two ways. Either the control is about free software (which is what I suppose he meant). In this case it would mean that if you can not read and modify the source code of your program then you are its instrument. I can't agree with this. For me there is little difference in end result for most users between not being able and not being capable of modifying the software. The other way to read this would be about how the program is used. If my morning starts with my phone telling me it is not going to rain and i go out into a downpour without an umbrella then I put too much confidence into the algorithm. This could get much worse though.

apatters 9y ago
If the software has a free license, then someone can fork it, and provide an alternative that's less abusive. Of course, unless you're making the modifications personally, you'll need to trust the developers behind the new project. But at least their work is free software too. That means it can be audited publicly, so for instance you can always find out why their news feed algorithm shows you some stories and not others. And if they get too abusive, someone might come along and fork them. In this sense free software's main benefit is that it lowers (though doesn't eliminate) switching costs. Businesses have been well aware of this advantage since Microsoft's abuses in the '90s, and that's a big reason much of the software in use today is free. Consumers, though, haven't learned this lesson yet. Now, I certainly don't think free software is the complete and only solution. It strikes me that the bigger issue is trust and where we place it. For most of human history the face we looked at when we first woke up was of the person we loved most in the world. Now it's Apple or Google, who by their nature as publicly traded companies actually _can_ be trusted to act in a certain manner, but certainly not in a manner that puts our best interests first.

ekianjo 9y ago

Control at the time of the quote is not at all what you interpret it to be now. Control for RMS was control on how you can modify the software or share it. It had very little to do with mind control per se. Context matters.

kwhitefoot 9y ago
I think that misrepresents Stallman's concerns. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html for instance. It is clear that free software is a tool for political ends not merely an end in itself.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  That piece is from 1997. RMS 10 years before that had a much more down to earth concern about software. Like everyone he has evolved in his thinking.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Why has it stayed up on gnu.org if it no longer supports his/their philosophy?

fortani 9y ago

Agreed. The problem here is not the smartphone per se, but our increasing dependence on it and the "outsourcing" of our thinking and desires to our smartphone. Imagine the follow scenario: * Need to get to a place? Just ask Google Maps, no need to think. * Need to decide what and where to eat? Don't need to think, just use an app that optimizes for health/variety/preferences/budget and you don't even need to leave the house, just it delivered right to your doorstep. * Need to think deeply about something? Just Google for the right articles. No need to waste time thinking. * Feeling bored? Just consume a game, song, movie, Reddit/Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc. * Don't know what to do next week? Have an app that auto-suggests what you can do based on your preferences, your friends' schedules, activities in your city, past user ratings for an event, etc. Taking this further, have an AI virtual assistant that plans your entire year's activities. * Need to date someone? Use an AI virtual assistant (built with the latest in Natural Language Processing and AI technology that optimizes for the right words to use, the correct responses, the best times to send a message, the best jokes to be using, the best emotions to elicit) that has already done all the swiping on Tinder/OKCupid and done all the texting conversations to set you up on a date. When this point in the future arrives, without a smartphone, you would become almost feel like an empty shell (or even suicidal). Your very existence becomes tied in to the smartphone. Your daily whims/desires becomes dependent on the smartphone. If you were given a life sentence: give up an arm or a leg, or give up the right to own or use a smartphone for life. I think increasingly in time, people would rather give up an arm or a leg than give up a smartphone for life. The question then becomes: Do you own a smartphone, or does the smartphone own you?

alansammarone 9y ago
I don't think all of these are a problem per se. The problem is (and probably always was) people with empty minds. Sure, now they can fill it more easily with junk, but the whole point of technology is to make life easier after all. If you're learning or working on something you love and you want to have more time to do, its a perfectly reasonable choice to outsource "what I'm I going to eat next" or "how do you I get from A to B". The problem is not having anything that you love to learn/work on.
- 9y ago

deepGem 9y ago

If the program controls the users, and the developer controls the program, then the program is an instrument of unjust power. I'd modify this statement as the program can potentially be an instrument of unjust power. I like to believe that the opposite of this will most likely occur. What if such a program manipulates people's minds towards the good, what if it can turn terrorists against terrorism. Whenever we think of something outside our brain taking control of our lives, we only think of negative outcomes. Why not positive ones ? Sure distraction is bad, but how bad ? I don't buy the argument that the short doses of of social media engagement is equivalent to consuming heroin or smoking. It is an addiction for sure, but why is addiction bad ? All through history, we have always looked for means of getting high - from alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and what not. Ever since we discovered that we can get high, we have embarked on finding new means that can give us that high. Why do people want to be rich ? So that they can show off. Showing off is an addiction. Social media is just making that addiction available to every one. To use some silicon valley terminology, social media is democratizing showing off and we are just getting started :). I say this because, Whenever we friends got together for a beer or a social hangout, most of the conversation, at least 50% drift around to showing off. So I've realized that social media has just become an extension of our behavior. It has become just a tool to express our collective narcissism. The root cause of the addiction is not social media, it's our own self. I am generalizing, and there are many many exceptions to the above stated collective behavior.

amazingman 9y ago
I think you’re fundamentally failing to interact with the scale of the problems arising from the attention economy, basically handwaving with the word “just”. Even if I were to grant—though I don’t—your claim that addiction isn’t necessarily bad, it wouldn’t follow that it’s perfectly fine for businesses to boundlessly seek more effective ways to capture more human attention more of the time. ”Just” run the simulation in your head, and gradually turn up parameters such as: - amount/quality of information about how the human brain works - % of humans addicted to addicting-by-design software experiences - number of unethical people who realize the financial and political opportunity a pathologically distracted electorate presents And then maybe take another look at what’s happening in our world today.

musage 9y ago

> The first thing most of us do when we wake up is roll over, grab our phone, and look at some software The danger of computers becoming like humans is not as great as the danger of humans becoming like computers. -- Konrad Zuse I recall Joseph Weizenbaum mentioning something like that in an interview before his death, too, about the difference between using technology to empower people, or to exploit them. But hey, Wikipedia so what do they know... ask the mediocre for permission to learn from the great at your own peril, that's my motto.

panic 9y ago
Joseph Weizenbaum's book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation (https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Power-Human-Reason-Calculation/dp/0716704633 https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Power-Human-Reason-Calculati...) is worth a read. Weizenbaum had written ELIZA, the original "chatbot", a decade earlier (in 1966), and was worried by how much people imputed "thought" to its simple programming. The book addresses this same topic: to what extent is computer "thought" like human "thought", and what are the dangers of equating these concepts? Like any book about AI written in the 70's, there are some things that are obviously out of date or wrong, but overall it holds up quite well. There's also a section on "compulsive programmers" that may cause some self-reflection among this crowd: https://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/Pages/Hester_James/HACKER.htm https://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Business/ComputerScience/P...

hellbanner 9y ago

Ah, yes "Program or Be Programmed" "When humans learned to read, they also learned to write" Now humans learn how to click without learning how to code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgicuytCkoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgicuytCkoY trailer for the book "10 commandments for a digital age"

deevolution 9y ago

Couldnt agree more with that you said. Desktops/laptops are very different mechanisms for delivering content. Its alot harder to be the one in control when using a smartphone because of how closed off the app ecosystem is. Its very difficult to mod the software on phones compared to on a desktop/laptop. Cellphones are instruments of control. Laptops and computers are instruments of creation.