4 ms·

We are stuck in the twilight zone. I have never seen a serious defense of the dystopic status quo of current tech. I would have loved to. If you read an honest,

We are stuck in the twilight zone. I have never seen a serious defense of the dystopic status quo of current tech. I would have loved to. If you read an honest, intelligent argument (that comes from a recognizably human psyche, not a lawyer, or a cynical, amoral capital accumulator) it can "open your eyes". It can convince you that your view is missing an important angle. That can be liberating, exhilarating even as it enlarges the "universe". Alas there is no such position because the status quo is essentially... evil. Deceit, greed, exploitation is baked in so deeply in the dominant business models it is impossible to square with what one might term "common morality". There is no other legal industry that is predicated on so much ignorance and impotence of its peculiar class of "users-consumers-products". Tacitly the actual argument is: "the world sucks and you can do nothing about it. Wear those goggles and joint our happy metaverse or live as a poor and socially awkward pariah". Countless people have sketched what "good tech" looks like. It is as distant today (Aaron Swartz memory day) as it was in 2013. But I will never accept that this distorted reality is somehow our natural or deserved state.

dr-detroit 5y ago
For me it starts with making a major distinction between facebook and the comments on HN and YT. Comments are trivial. facebook is a CIA sponsored (according to ABC news) weaponized sexapp.
FuckedCompany 5y ago
Well we tried this whole “open your eyes” thing in a different way. We tried, and still do to some degree, to highlight who is in charge of these companies, what their backgrounds tend to be in the great majority of cases. To look for patterns and agendas. How is it orchestrated, these sorts of things. But then we get deplatformed and ostracized. The end result of which is that some people, having been burned, who once would have defended a better internet than the one we have now, are perfectly fine with watching it burn.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  The internet expands; it’s our young people who will keep the score.
q1w2 5y ago
Calling it "evil" is too simplistic. I prefer to think of current tech much like genetic diversity on a highly accelerated scale. The evolution of what survives has little intelligent design. What works; works. What starves or causes damage to attract gov't regulation; dies or mutates. What we are seeing is the chaos before an equilibrium is formed. We see the complex interaction of governments, corporations, cryptos, social media, AI, and humans - and as stable power structures form that can survive the tumult endure, so they evolve and become more "fit" than other elements in the ecosystem. Think of it like a jungle, not a religious quest.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  I actually don't see chaos, or mixing or any real competition between alternative DNA pools. What I see is a very orderly exponential expansion (into a regulatory vacuum) of a viral tech mode that successfully short-circuited many parts of the old "system" to finance its growth and in the process renormalized and redefined what is moral business (or actually any business) in the digital age. It is possible that countervailing forces will eventually show up. But I am not holding my breath. The new pattern is now entirely systemic. There are some loose ends here and there as people must "adjust their expectations" around e.g., financial and medical privacy, but you'd be surprised what innovative types of smoke and mirrors you can cook up when you are swimming in a fresh multi-billion wave every per quarter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
strogonoff 5y ago
I think the sense of doom (which I’m no stranger to myself) comes from thinking of the existing Big Social advertiser-oriented products as ends in themselves of sorts, and from bundling all their users into one big group of Big-Social-enthusiasts. In reality, the “ends” here are diverse communities, subcultures, networks of individuals that keep in touch. They become the product because they use whatever works, not because they necessarily endorse or approve those platforms for their own sake. The first arrival of the Web and waves of network effects and excitement fueled the big platforms of today, but after all that hype those smaller islands-communities are becoming more pronounced among the general disillusionment (domestic cozy and all that). And, luckily, the smaller a community or subculture, the easier it is for it to switch to a self-hosted or more honest alternative. Undoubtedly, ad-driven platforms will try to retain those islands by providing features or side-products communities might find convenient. However, as independent alternatives become mature and reliable, I hope the savvier and more conscious communities will[0] be resisting feeding the Big Social’s troll-driven data-mining oligopoly (or whichever next shady fad) and stay out, except for an odd visit to publish something intended for a wider audience or watch the dumpster fire burn out of morbid curiosity. I think raising and maintaining awareness of the grossness of shady business models and their consequences, as well as vetting and suggesting alternatives, is best we can do. [0] Most likely many already do, but naturally I wouldn’t hear about it unless I’m part of one. (Notably, as a result of this migration, many communities might become more closed, which is a bit sad to consider—and yes, Big Social is very much not without blame here again.)

dr-detroit 5y ago

For me it starts with making a major distinction between facebook and the comments on HN and YT. Comments are trivial. facebook is a CIA sponsored (according to ABC news) weaponized sexapp.

FuckedCompany 5y ago

Well we tried this whole “open your eyes” thing in a different way. We tried, and still do to some degree, to highlight who is in charge of these companies, what their backgrounds tend to be in the great majority of cases. To look for patterns and agendas. How is it orchestrated, these sorts of things. But then we get deplatformed and ostracized. The end result of which is that some people, having been burned, who once would have defended a better internet than the one we have now, are perfectly fine with watching it burn.

germinalphrase 5y ago
The internet expands; it’s our young people who will keep the score.

q1w2 5y ago

Calling it "evil" is too simplistic. I prefer to think of current tech much like genetic diversity on a highly accelerated scale. The evolution of what survives has little intelligent design. What works; works. What starves or causes damage to attract gov't regulation; dies or mutates. What we are seeing is the chaos before an equilibrium is formed. We see the complex interaction of governments, corporations, cryptos, social media, AI, and humans - and as stable power structures form that can survive the tumult endure, so they evolve and become more "fit" than other elements in the ecosystem. Think of it like a jungle, not a religious quest.

streamofdigits 5y ago
I actually don't see chaos, or mixing or any real competition between alternative DNA pools. What I see is a very orderly exponential expansion (into a regulatory vacuum) of a viral tech mode that successfully short-circuited many parts of the old "system" to finance its growth and in the process renormalized and redefined what is moral business (or actually any business) in the digital age. It is possible that countervailing forces will eventually show up. But I am not holding my breath. The new pattern is now entirely systemic. There are some loose ends here and there as people must "adjust their expectations" around e.g., financial and medical privacy, but you'd be surprised what innovative types of smoke and mirrors you can cook up when you are swimming in a fresh multi-billion wave every per quarter.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

strogonoff 5y ago

I think the sense of doom (which I’m no stranger to myself) comes from thinking of the existing Big Social advertiser-oriented products as ends in themselves of sorts, and from bundling all their users into one big group of Big-Social-enthusiasts. In reality, the “ends” here are diverse communities, subcultures, networks of individuals that keep in touch. They become the product because they use whatever works, not because they necessarily endorse or approve those platforms for their own sake. The first arrival of the Web and waves of network effects and excitement fueled the big platforms of today, but after all that hype those smaller islands-communities are becoming more pronounced among the general disillusionment (domestic cozy and all that). And, luckily, the smaller a community or subculture, the easier it is for it to switch to a self-hosted or more honest alternative. Undoubtedly, ad-driven platforms will try to retain those islands by providing features or side-products communities might find convenient. However, as independent alternatives become mature and reliable, I hope the savvier and more conscious communities will[0] be resisting feeding the Big Social’s troll-driven data-mining oligopoly (or whichever next shady fad) and stay out, except for an odd visit to publish something intended for a wider audience or watch the dumpster fire burn out of morbid curiosity. I think raising and maintaining awareness of the grossness of shady business models and their consequences, as well as vetting and suggesting alternatives, is best we can do. [0] Most likely many already do, but naturally I wouldn’t hear about it unless I’m part of one. (Notably, as a result of this migration, many communities might become more closed, which is a bit sad to consider—and yes, Big Social is very much not without blame here again.)