3 ms·

> It is a neutral force. This is a common myth that ignores a century of philosophical thought[1] on the subtle interplay between technology and behavior. Goo

> It is a neutral force. This is a common myth that ignores a century of philosophical thought[1] on the subtle interplay between technology and behavior. Good parts and bad parts—often unintended—but certainly not neutral: - Jacques Ellul insists that 'technique carries with it its own effects quite apart from how it is used... No matter how it is used, it has of itself a number of positive and negative consequences. This is not just a matter of intention' - Don Ihde, the philosopher, has argued that particular tools unavoidably select, amplify and reduce aspects of experience in various ways - Abbe Mowshowitz, a computer scientist, argues that 'tools insist on being used in particular ways' - Neil Postman insists that 'the printing press, the computer, and television are not therefore simply machines which convey information. They are metaphors through which we conceptualize reality in one way or another... we do not see the world as it is. We see it as our coding systems are.' [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20190215155149/http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/tdet08.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190215155149/http://visual-mem...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The UI/UX concept of "affordances" is an example where people understand the concept - a device may afford particular use, while discouraging a different use. That said, "technology" is a term that covers a lot of things, essentially creating a spectrum of neutrality. For instance, on a direct level, a gun affords killing and coercing with threats of violence. Second-order effects, however, involve complex implications on politics, society and economy. Still, you may declare it "mostly bad". But then let's look at its component - gunpowder, chemicals used in modern ammunition, or explosives in general. Are they force of bad? They don't afford killing as much. Then look at the theoretical chemistry and engineering knowledge around those substances. Those have as much if not more clearly benign applications as they have malicious ones. Similarly, targeted advertising on-line may be evil, cookies less so. TCP? Ethernet? Those are all "technologies".

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The UI/UX concept of "affordances" is an example where people understand the concept - a device may afford particular use, while discouraging a different use. That said, "technology" is a term that covers a lot of things, essentially creating a spectrum of neutrality. For instance, on a direct level, a gun affords killing and coercing with threats of violence. Second-order effects, however, involve complex implications on politics, society and economy. Still, you may declare it "mostly bad". But then let's look at its component - gunpowder, chemicals used in modern ammunition, or explosives in general. Are they force of bad? They don't afford killing as much. Then look at the theoretical chemistry and engineering knowledge around those substances. Those have as much if not more clearly benign applications as they have malicious ones. Similarly, targeted advertising on-line may be evil, cookies less so. TCP? Ethernet? Those are all "technologies".