4 ms·

> It looks like everything in tech got poisoned... > ...building a toxic monstrosity this industry is becoming just to make somebody with a limited lifespan fe

by Seenso 7y ago

> It looks like everything in tech got poisoned... > ...building a toxic monstrosity this industry is becoming just to make somebody with a limited lifespan feel powerful and rich. That's what you get when you combine shareholder-focused capitalism, the attitude that everything's OK as long as it's legal, and the attitude that we should avoid making things illegal through regulation (so as not to stifle innovation such as this). IMHO, all of those ideas should be rejected or greatly curtailed because of the poisonous tree that's grown from them (which bears delicious poison fruit).

bradstewart 7y ago
The real kicker, though, is the scale at which software allows that combination of ideas to affect people.
Barrin92 7y ago
you're getting downvoted just for pointing out why the problem exists. The discussions around these issues always follow the same pattern that reminds me of a dialogue I recently saw posted somewhere, where an Amish person and a non-Amish person talked about technology and the amish person asked the other one, "do you think having the television on is good for you and your family?" and the other person responded "no, but we don't want to get rid of it because it may be useful", and the amish guy responded with "that's the difference between us, if something is bad for our family we throw it out." The discussions around tech are the exact same. We all agree the modern internet is screwed, large companies put ads into everything, we're getting screwed over, non-profit domain spaces are being sold, everyone's unhappy, and we do .... nothing. Because of 'innovation' or some other conjured up fantasy term.
- leppr 7y ago
  > everyone's unhappy, and we do .... nothing. Because of 'innovation' or some other conjured up fantasy term. The only reason "we" do nothing, is that "we" have no agency. Other reasons are just rationalization to cope with our powerlessness: we pretend ideological debates among the people decide the faith of the country. The only vote "we" have is voting with our wallet, which only works in a truly free market.
prawn 7y ago
How much of this is feature creep when teams feel obliged to keep adding more and more to justify their jobs? Let's say you work for Samsung in their TV software division. Other than incremental upgrades in screen technology coming through for you to accommodate, what else can you keep pushing through the pipeline to impress your managers? Maybe smart TV features are the low hanging fruit for these employees? I mean, I dislike that functionality, but maybe the pushback from the public isn't strong enough?
- nerdponx 7y ago
  It's not to impress managers, it's to make more money. And most tech employees just don't care enough (or even have enough of a moral compass) to protest. Paycheck first, ethics second.
briandear 7y ago
You are implying that capitalism is the problem? What does privacy look like in non-capitalist places? What was the privacy like in East Germany? Or China? Or Cuba? Capitalism isn’t the problem, it’s the solution: build things people want and the market rewards it.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > You are implying that capitalism is the problem? Certain kinds of capitalism, yes. There's not just one kind, and the kind we have now isn't the best kind. Perhaps we should try to discover a better one? > What does privacy look like in non-capitalist places ... like ... China ...? China is very capitalist now, if you weren't aware. In any case, the main problem in those countries (at least with regards to privacy) was authoritarianism, not non-capitalism.
- devb 7y ago
  If only there was an system somewhere between the United States and East Germany. Sheesh.
- leppr 7y ago
  It's important to also acknowledge the crucial role culture plays in this problem, regardless of the political system it cradles. The public is simply ignorant about surveillance technology issues. Not that long ago we used to tolerate sawdust in our bread[1], and that's food, something humans should be pretty knowledgeable about. People would revolt if this happened now, whether they live under a capitalist or communist system. A free market might accelerate the transition, but education about the issue is still the underlying factor of change. [1]: http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/03/sawdust-bread.html http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/03/sawdust-bread.html

by Seenso 7y ago

bradstewart 7y ago

The real kicker, though, is the scale at which software allows that combination of ideas to affect people.

Barrin92 7y ago

you're getting downvoted just for pointing out why the problem exists. The discussions around these issues always follow the same pattern that reminds me of a dialogue I recently saw posted somewhere, where an Amish person and a non-Amish person talked about technology and the amish person asked the other one, "do you think having the television on is good for you and your family?" and the other person responded "no, but we don't want to get rid of it because it may be useful", and the amish guy responded with "that's the difference between us, if something is bad for our family we throw it out." The discussions around tech are the exact same. We all agree the modern internet is screwed, large companies put ads into everything, we're getting screwed over, non-profit domain spaces are being sold, everyone's unhappy, and we do .... nothing. Because of 'innovation' or some other conjured up fantasy term.

leppr 7y ago
> everyone's unhappy, and we do .... nothing. Because of 'innovation' or some other conjured up fantasy term. The only reason "we" do nothing, is that "we" have no agency. Other reasons are just rationalization to cope with our powerlessness: we pretend ideological debates among the people decide the faith of the country. The only vote "we" have is voting with our wallet, which only works in a truly free market.

prawn 7y ago

How much of this is feature creep when teams feel obliged to keep adding more and more to justify their jobs? Let's say you work for Samsung in their TV software division. Other than incremental upgrades in screen technology coming through for you to accommodate, what else can you keep pushing through the pipeline to impress your managers? Maybe smart TV features are the low hanging fruit for these employees? I mean, I dislike that functionality, but maybe the pushback from the public isn't strong enough?

nerdponx 7y ago
It's not to impress managers, it's to make more money. And most tech employees just don't care enough (or even have enough of a moral compass) to protest. Paycheck first, ethics second.

briandear 7y ago

You are implying that capitalism is the problem? What does privacy look like in non-capitalist places? What was the privacy like in East Germany? Or China? Or Cuba? Capitalism isn’t the problem, it’s the solution: build things people want and the market rewards it.

Seenso 7y ago
> You are implying that capitalism is the problem? Certain kinds of capitalism, yes. There's not just one kind, and the kind we have now isn't the best kind. Perhaps we should try to discover a better one? > What does privacy look like in non-capitalist places ... like ... China ...? China is very capitalist now, if you weren't aware. In any case, the main problem in those countries (at least with regards to privacy) was authoritarianism, not non-capitalism.
devb 7y ago
If only there was an system somewhere between the United States and East Germany. Sheesh.
leppr 7y ago
It's important to also acknowledge the crucial role culture plays in this problem, regardless of the political system it cradles. The public is simply ignorant about surveillance technology issues. Not that long ago we used to tolerate sawdust in our bread[1], and that's food, something humans should be pretty knowledgeable about. People would revolt if this happened now, whether they live under a capitalist or communist system. A free market might accelerate the transition, but education about the issue is still the underlying factor of change. [1]: http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/03/sawdust-bread.html http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/03/sawdust-bread.html