6 ms·

Thank you for those kind words! I included the story about the radio astronomers because it's such a nice example of doing something creative with technology i

Thank you for those kind words! I included the story about the radio astronomers because it's such a nice example of doing something creative with technology in the service of a broader goal, while staying true to who you are—a big giant nerd. I don't think applying technology to political problems is anathema, it just requires special care and humility. My quarrel is with people who think you can treat human society like a deterministic computer system, and 'hack' it. Politics is hard!

vinceguidry 9y ago
The old school word for hacking human society is 'terrorism'. You look at the joints of the animal and figure out where to apply the most leverage.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Activism might be a better term.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    There's a fine line between terrorism and activism. Civil disobedience actions like labor strikes toes it without stepping over.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rhizome 9y ago
      In what way is a labor strike almost terrorism?
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        Well, a labor strike is almost never entirely legal. They're always going to be breaking various civil infractions, if not actually trespassing. But also such things can be tinderboxes just waiting for the right spark to turn violent. A violent strike is certainly terrorism.
        rhizome 9y ago
        I meant in the real world.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        "Terrorism" does not mean the same thing as "breaking the low", nor is it synonymous to "violence". Terrorism is about doing horrible things to scare the living shit out of a population, in order to achieve some political goals. Calling a labor strike "terrorism" is like calling a taxicab space rocket.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Thanks for the clarification. Based on your previous talks, I assumed you're leaning towards thinking that (almost) all of our current problems are primarily social, and no technology is of help here. If I may pick your mind a little bit more - what do you think of the approach of a hypothetical person, who decides that politics is too hard and, with good intentions, thinks unilaterally unleashing new technology on the world is a more efficient way to fix things? -- Also, I've been browsing through your other recently published talks, and there was this paragraph in one of them[0] that caught my attention: > This is an inversion in political life that we haven’t seen before. Conversations between people that used to be private, or semi-private, now take place on public forums where they are archived forever. Meanwhile, the kind of political messaging that used to take place in public view is now visible only to an audience of one. I'm quoting it here because I found it to be a really insightful observation, that never occurred to me before. The hyper-targeting of political messages is indeed eroding our ability to discuss those issues together, as everyone is starting from a different point of view created by political arguments. Our present times kind of remind me yet another quote from the Bible: For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3) -- One more question: in your talks, you propose a lot of actions that, IMO, share the same fundamental problem - they require coordination, which is something tremendously hard to achieve at scale, especially when the individual incentives pull us all apart. Do you have any ideas on a) alternative strategies that require less coordination, b) ways to reduce the need for coordinating to employ your proposals, or c) ways to boost the ability of 'people of good will' to coordinate? -- [0] - http://idlewords.com/talks/build_a_better_monster.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/build_a_better_monster.htm
- idlewords 9y ago
  I would put it differently, that any major technical innovation will change the balance of power between people and institutions, and so have political consequences. You have to deal with those the only way we know how—by engaging with the messy, frustrating, difficult human institutions that we all rely on. Because people are involved, you can't anticipate the social effects of any technology. It's the problem Soros calls 'reflexivity'—systems with people in the feedback loop don't behave like dumb systems; they take your own motives into account and change their behavior! So just deploying the stuff and hoping for some kind of complicated socio-technical bank shot that gets you the outcome you want is unlikely to work. You can say "I don't care what the consequences are", but you can't pretend there will be no consequences, or that you can predict them. That whole concept of the 'inversion in political life' belongs to Zeynep Tufekci, to whom all credit is due for it. I agree that it is brilliant. She is a profound thinker about this stuff. If you're not already familiar with her work, you're in for a treat. For your last question, this is what I am trying to figure out in organizing Tech Solidarity, and I wish I had any answers. It is very, very hard.
Sniffnoy 9y ago
> My quarrel is with people who think you can treat human society like a deterministic computer system, and 'hack' it. Politics is hard! I'm going to nitpick here and point out that if you want to avoid getting into stupid philosophical or definitional arguments you should probably say "predictable" or "easily predictable" or "practically predictable" or something along those lines rather than "deterministic".

vinceguidry 9y ago

The old school word for hacking human society is 'terrorism'. You look at the joints of the animal and figure out where to apply the most leverage.

jacquesm 9y ago
Activism might be a better term.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  There's a fine line between terrorism and activism. Civil disobedience actions like labor strikes toes it without stepping over.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhizome 9y ago
    In what way is a labor strike almost terrorism?
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      Well, a labor strike is almost never entirely legal. They're always going to be breaking various civil infractions, if not actually trespassing. But also such things can be tinderboxes just waiting for the right spark to turn violent. A violent strike is certainly terrorism.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        I meant in the real world.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        "Terrorism" does not mean the same thing as "breaking the low", nor is it synonymous to "violence". Terrorism is about doing horrible things to scare the living shit out of a population, in order to achieve some political goals. Calling a labor strike "terrorism" is like calling a taxicab space rocket.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Thanks for the clarification. Based on your previous talks, I assumed you're leaning towards thinking that (almost) all of our current problems are primarily social, and no technology is of help here. If I may pick your mind a little bit more - what do you think of the approach of a hypothetical person, who decides that politics is too hard and, with good intentions, thinks unilaterally unleashing new technology on the world is a more efficient way to fix things? -- Also, I've been browsing through your other recently published talks, and there was this paragraph in one of them[0] that caught my attention: > This is an inversion in political life that we haven’t seen before. Conversations between people that used to be private, or semi-private, now take place on public forums where they are archived forever. Meanwhile, the kind of political messaging that used to take place in public view is now visible only to an audience of one. I'm quoting it here because I found it to be a really insightful observation, that never occurred to me before. The hyper-targeting of political messages is indeed eroding our ability to discuss those issues together, as everyone is starting from a different point of view created by political arguments. Our present times kind of remind me yet another quote from the Bible: For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3) -- One more question: in your talks, you propose a lot of actions that, IMO, share the same fundamental problem - they require coordination, which is something tremendously hard to achieve at scale, especially when the individual incentives pull us all apart. Do you have any ideas on a) alternative strategies that require less coordination, b) ways to reduce the need for coordinating to employ your proposals, or c) ways to boost the ability of 'people of good will' to coordinate? -- [0] - http://idlewords.com/talks/build_a_better_monster.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/build_a_better_monster.htm

idlewords 9y ago
I would put it differently, that any major technical innovation will change the balance of power between people and institutions, and so have political consequences. You have to deal with those the only way we know how—by engaging with the messy, frustrating, difficult human institutions that we all rely on. Because people are involved, you can't anticipate the social effects of any technology. It's the problem Soros calls 'reflexivity'—systems with people in the feedback loop don't behave like dumb systems; they take your own motives into account and change their behavior! So just deploying the stuff and hoping for some kind of complicated socio-technical bank shot that gets you the outcome you want is unlikely to work. You can say "I don't care what the consequences are", but you can't pretend there will be no consequences, or that you can predict them. That whole concept of the 'inversion in political life' belongs to Zeynep Tufekci, to whom all credit is due for it. I agree that it is brilliant. She is a profound thinker about this stuff. If you're not already familiar with her work, you're in for a treat. For your last question, this is what I am trying to figure out in organizing Tech Solidarity, and I wish I had any answers. It is very, very hard.

Sniffnoy 9y ago

> My quarrel is with people who think you can treat human society like a deterministic computer system, and 'hack' it. Politics is hard! I'm going to nitpick here and point out that if you want to avoid getting into stupid philosophical or definitional arguments you should probably say "predictable" or "easily predictable" or "practically predictable" or something along those lines rather than "deterministic".