6 ms·

This is an unconvincing article. If we look past the paragraphs of emotional appeals, the actual results for "technosolutionism" during the pandemic are this:

This is an unconvincing article. If we look past the paragraphs of emotional appeals, the actual results for "technosolutionism" during the pandemic are this: China created a technosolutionist fix. They implemented it widely with government backing. It was invasive but worked. South Korea created a technosolutionist fix, which was less invasive than China's. It was implemented widely with government backing. It also worked. Apple/Google created a technosolutionist fix. It was not implemented in the US and did not receive government backing. It did not work. The article claims this disparity is really because South Korea is "homogenous" and "trusting". The US instead attempted to implement "proven measures" that "relied on the public . . . to adhere to them." This also did not work, for the reason technosolutionists said it wouldn't: the public didn't adhere to them. What part of this is supposed to show that "technosolutionism isn't the fix?"

ralfd 6y ago
Yes, and the ultimate technosolution by the west is a vaccine.
cbozeman 6y ago
Vietnam created a technosolutionist fix, it was also implemented widely with government backing. It did also work. And now its being used by police to crack down on specific groups and individuals that the government doesn't particularly like, even after that same government assured the Vietnamese people that this data wouldn't be used in such a way. > The US instead attempted to implement "proven measures" that "relied on the public . . . to adhere to them." This also did not work, for the reason technosolutionists said it wouldn't: the public didn't adhere to them. It didn't work because America is advanced freedom. Not freedom in the sense of, "You're free to eat sushi or have a burger instead," but freedom in the sense of, "You're free to make a cornucopia of bad choices... but you're going to be free to suffer from them too." The best quote I've ever heard in regards to this: "The true price of freedom is having to endure what other people do with it."
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  The US Gov is already kidnapping citizens in unmarked vans and snooping on all our data so I’m not even sure we’re really getting the freedom part. I wonder what number of COVID deaths stops being acceptable losses for our amazing liberty? After sandy hook I’m guessing there is no limit
- Miraste 6y ago
  I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. To counterquote: "Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins." Attributed to many famous people over the years, this originally comes from John B. Finch, a 19th century chair of the Prohibition National Committee. While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's important.
  - derefr 6y ago
    Freedom vs. authoritarianism isn't quite the thing being pointed at here, but there is a concept that the GP's post is getting at: freedom vs. paternalism. The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you — i.e. render you incapable of doing — things it doesn't want you to do; while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you for doing things, hoping you'll stop yourself from doing those things by considering the potential consequences. In a non-paternalistic state, you do kind of have the right to strike people in the nose... once. Those other people just have the right to seek justice for you having done that, and the government has a right to put you in jail for having done that — whereupon you'll have your right to strike people in the nose taken away, by being led around in manacles. But once you've served your time and return to the outside world, you'll again have the right to strike people in the nose. Once. A paternalistic state, meanwhile, looks like e.g. having people diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital (despite never having yet actually attacked anyone) unless/until they agree to take drugs to "control" the disorder. Literally trying to ensure that such people never strike someone in the nose in the first place. Americans don't actually fear authoritarianism (e.g. harsh punishments, for many different offenses); they mostly fear paternalism.
geofft 6y ago
Well, it seems like the distinction in the cases is not the amount of technosolutionism but the amount of government backing, no? Quoting the article on that precise point: > Critics of the technosolutionist approach point out that contact tracing apps, which were quickly embraced in countries like China and South Korea, were effective only if public health services were also able to successfully test the majority of people at risk, something that has yet to occur in the United States. Technology is a necessary component of many solutions, but is rarely per se the solution. The old internet saying "There are no technical solutions to social problems" comes to mind - it doesn't mean that technology can't contribute to the solution (many social problems have solutions that require statistical models, cookies, higher-performance internet connections, Spanner, whatever), it just means that the technology doesn't solve the problem on its own. Wikipedia, for instance, would not be what it is without the wiki, but it is certainly not simply the wiki - it's the decades of writing that happened on the wiki. Many people set up their own wiki, in the wake of Wikipedia, hoping to see the same success. Very few of them ended up working. Technical-component-of-a-social-solution-ism is not technosolutionism. The article defines technosolutionism as follows: "Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems. Its first principle is the notion that an app, a machine, a software program, or an algorithm offers the best solution to any complicated problem." All the projects from March to build 3D-printed ventilators at home, for instance, were technosolutionism. There's a lack of a physical item; we have 3D printers. Obviously we can 3D print our way out of the problem! I'd argue that https://www.vaccinateca.com/ https://www.vaccinateca.com/ , for instance, is not technosolutionism in the definition above, despite it relying on a website and Airtable (https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1350539166296100864 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1350539166296100864), because they're not saying "We can build a platform for pharmacies to enter data," they're saying "We're going to call up pharmacists, ourselves, and type what they say into a spreadsheet." Of course there's a lot of technical work that went into Airtable. But the difference, I think, is that they set out to solve a problem, and along the way they found a place where technology can help; they didn't set out to find a use for technology.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
claudiulodro 6y ago
I agree, it's a nuanced issue. IMHO, the pandemic was heavily exacerbated by technosolutionism (air travel), which makes this sort of analysis difficult. At this stage in society, it's basically "is technology the solution for problems created by technology?" That's been a long-running debate with no clear answer.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It's always been like this, ever since our ancestors figured out how to use stones to smash things. Technology solves problems and reveals or creates new ones. Which are to be solved with more technology. It's somewhat obvious point if one looks at what the word means - "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes".
Barrin92 6y ago
Neither China or South Korea created technological solutions. The solutions in both countries are social. China used some good old communist methods, mobilise the entire population in the fight against the virus. Virtually every apartment building had someone sitting in front of it taking temperature. Every restaurant had. When someone was sick, two others were checking in and ensuring that people comply with regulation and go shopping for them. When China had one case in a city they cordoned off half a million people and tested millions. South Korea wasn't quite as stringent with lockdowns but it worked the same way, compliance of the population, quick testing and human tracing. Same in Taiwan. What worked there was giving you a phone, locking you in your apartment, having the health department call on you three times per day and fining you 10k bucks if you didn't listen. The tracing apps did, to put it mildly, jack shit. The solution, which is why a lot of Asian countries, even relatively poor ones like Vietnam, made it out of this, was adherence to law and compliance and harsh measures for those who fell out of line. Throwing some random Apple dongle at every problem fixes exactly nothing, you can install a hundred apps on your phone, if your entire population has lost the collective will to actually act in coordinated fashion you're in the dog house.
- lazylizard 6y ago
  dunno about sk. but doesn't cn also have a contact tracing system where u have to "login" to physical buildings? and use of cctv footage to help contact tracing? its not just people and phone calls?
twblalock 6y ago
The article uses Zoom as an example of a bad technical solution. But Zoom and similar video software is the only reason a lot of people still have jobs, or can see the faces of their family and friends. That's a lot more concrete and important than the "event boundaries" and other hand-wavy psychology theory the author complains about. Imagine if this pandemic had happened in 1990, or even 2000. The web would have been nonexistent (in 1990) or quite young (in 2000). There was not much video conferencing software available, and most people didn't have broadband anyway. Many more people would have been unable to do their jobs from home than is the case today, so many more would have been unemployed. Let's invert the article and talk about all the technological solutions that have improved life during the pandemic: - Video conferencing saves jobs, make remote learning possible, and enables people to see the faces of their friends and family. - Delivery services make it easier for people to quarantine at home and avoid risking exposure in grocery stores and restaurants. They also help keep many restaurants in business, as most restaurants do not have (and cannot afford) their own staff of drivers. - Streaming services help people stay sane while cooped up at home. Throughout the pandemic, a lot of tech products that people used to criticize as useless have proven very useful.
anonu 6y ago
> China created a technosolutionist fix. China runs on an authoritarian regime. Whatever success they can claim against the pandemic is less about technology and more about the ability to enforce draconian rules.

ralfd 6y ago

Yes, and the ultimate technosolution by the west is a vaccine.

cbozeman 6y ago

Vietnam created a technosolutionist fix, it was also implemented widely with government backing. It did also work. And now its being used by police to crack down on specific groups and individuals that the government doesn't particularly like, even after that same government assured the Vietnamese people that this data wouldn't be used in such a way. > The US instead attempted to implement "proven measures" that "relied on the public . . . to adhere to them." This also did not work, for the reason technosolutionists said it wouldn't: the public didn't adhere to them. It didn't work because America is advanced freedom. Not freedom in the sense of, "You're free to eat sushi or have a burger instead," but freedom in the sense of, "You're free to make a cornucopia of bad choices... but you're going to be free to suffer from them too." The best quote I've ever heard in regards to this: "The true price of freedom is having to endure what other people do with it."

toiletfuneral 6y ago
The US Gov is already kidnapping citizens in unmarked vans and snooping on all our data so I’m not even sure we’re really getting the freedom part. I wonder what number of COVID deaths stops being acceptable losses for our amazing liberty? After sandy hook I’m guessing there is no limit
Miraste 6y ago
I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom. To counterquote: "Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins." Attributed to many famous people over the years, this originally comes from John B. Finch, a 19th century chair of the Prohibition National Committee. While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's important.
- derefr 6y ago
  Freedom vs. authoritarianism isn't quite the thing being pointed at here, but there is a concept that the GP's post is getting at: freedom vs. paternalism. The difference between a paternalistic and non-paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic state tries to actively prevent you — i.e. render you incapable of doing — things it doesn't want you to do; while a non-paternalistic state merely punishes you for doing things, hoping you'll stop yourself from doing those things by considering the potential consequences. In a non-paternalistic state, you do kind of have the right to strike people in the nose... once. Those other people just have the right to seek justice for you having done that, and the government has a right to put you in jail for having done that — whereupon you'll have your right to strike people in the nose taken away, by being led around in manacles. But once you've served your time and return to the outside world, you'll again have the right to strike people in the nose. Once. A paternalistic state, meanwhile, looks like e.g. having people diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital (despite never having yet actually attacked anyone) unless/until they agree to take drugs to "control" the disorder. Literally trying to ensure that such people never strike someone in the nose in the first place. Americans don't actually fear authoritarianism (e.g. harsh punishments, for many different offenses); they mostly fear paternalism.

geofft 6y ago

Well, it seems like the distinction in the cases is not the amount of technosolutionism but the amount of government backing, no? Quoting the article on that precise point: > Critics of the technosolutionist approach point out that contact tracing apps, which were quickly embraced in countries like China and South Korea, were effective only if public health services were also able to successfully test the majority of people at risk, something that has yet to occur in the United States. Technology is a necessary component of many solutions, but is rarely per se the solution. The old internet saying "There are no technical solutions to social problems" comes to mind - it doesn't mean that technology can't contribute to the solution (many social problems have solutions that require statistical models, cookies, higher-performance internet connections, Spanner, whatever), it just means that the technology doesn't solve the problem on its own. Wikipedia, for instance, would not be what it is without the wiki, but it is certainly not simply the wiki - it's the decades of writing that happened on the wiki. Many people set up their own wiki, in the wake of Wikipedia, hoping to see the same success. Very few of them ended up working. Technical-component-of-a-social-solution-ism is not technosolutionism. The article defines technosolutionism as follows: "Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems. Its first principle is the notion that an app, a machine, a software program, or an algorithm offers the best solution to any complicated problem." All the projects from March to build 3D-printed ventilators at home, for instance, were technosolutionism. There's a lack of a physical item; we have 3D printers. Obviously we can 3D print our way out of the problem! I'd argue that https://www.vaccinateca.com/ https://www.vaccinateca.com/ , for instance, is not technosolutionism in the definition above, despite it relying on a website and Airtable (https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1350539166296100864 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1350539166296100864), because they're not saying "We can build a platform for pharmacies to enter data," they're saying "We're going to call up pharmacists, ourselves, and type what they say into a spreadsheet." Of course there's a lot of technical work that went into Airtable. But the difference, I think, is that they set out to solve a problem, and along the way they found a place where technology can help; they didn't set out to find a use for technology.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

claudiulodro 6y ago

I agree, it's a nuanced issue. IMHO, the pandemic was heavily exacerbated by technosolutionism (air travel), which makes this sort of analysis difficult. At this stage in society, it's basically "is technology the solution for problems created by technology?" That's been a long-running debate with no clear answer.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
It's always been like this, ever since our ancestors figured out how to use stones to smash things. Technology solves problems and reveals or creates new ones. Which are to be solved with more technology. It's somewhat obvious point if one looks at what the word means - "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes".

Barrin92 6y ago

Neither China or South Korea created technological solutions. The solutions in both countries are social. China used some good old communist methods, mobilise the entire population in the fight against the virus. Virtually every apartment building had someone sitting in front of it taking temperature. Every restaurant had. When someone was sick, two others were checking in and ensuring that people comply with regulation and go shopping for them. When China had one case in a city they cordoned off half a million people and tested millions. South Korea wasn't quite as stringent with lockdowns but it worked the same way, compliance of the population, quick testing and human tracing. Same in Taiwan. What worked there was giving you a phone, locking you in your apartment, having the health department call on you three times per day and fining you 10k bucks if you didn't listen. The tracing apps did, to put it mildly, jack shit. The solution, which is why a lot of Asian countries, even relatively poor ones like Vietnam, made it out of this, was adherence to law and compliance and harsh measures for those who fell out of line. Throwing some random Apple dongle at every problem fixes exactly nothing, you can install a hundred apps on your phone, if your entire population has lost the collective will to actually act in coordinated fashion you're in the dog house.

lazylizard 6y ago
dunno about sk. but doesn't cn also have a contact tracing system where u have to "login" to physical buildings? and use of cctv footage to help contact tracing? its not just people and phone calls?

twblalock 6y ago

The article uses Zoom as an example of a bad technical solution. But Zoom and similar video software is the only reason a lot of people still have jobs, or can see the faces of their family and friends. That's a lot more concrete and important than the "event boundaries" and other hand-wavy psychology theory the author complains about. Imagine if this pandemic had happened in 1990, or even 2000. The web would have been nonexistent (in 1990) or quite young (in 2000). There was not much video conferencing software available, and most people didn't have broadband anyway. Many more people would have been unable to do their jobs from home than is the case today, so many more would have been unemployed. Let's invert the article and talk about all the technological solutions that have improved life during the pandemic: - Video conferencing saves jobs, make remote learning possible, and enables people to see the faces of their friends and family. - Delivery services make it easier for people to quarantine at home and avoid risking exposure in grocery stores and restaurants. They also help keep many restaurants in business, as most restaurants do not have (and cannot afford) their own staff of drivers. - Streaming services help people stay sane while cooped up at home. Throughout the pandemic, a lot of tech products that people used to criticize as useless have proven very useful.

anonu 6y ago

> China created a technosolutionist fix. China runs on an authoritarian regime. Whatever success they can claim against the pandemic is less about technology and more about the ability to enforce draconian rules.