2 ms·

> Don't rely on conformism if you will gain more with autonomy. The author and myself, among others, believe that we should be free to use our computing machin

by User23 5y ago

> Don't rely on conformism if you will gain more with autonomy. The author and myself, among others, believe that we should be free to use our computing machines as we see fit. That is, the value of autonomy far exceeds that of any benefits of heteronomy. We believe that we always gain more with autonomy. That this is a minority view is of no ethical importance. However history, both in computation and in general, has shown us there is never a shortage of those willing to sacrifice their autonomy for the initially lower cognitive burden of letting someone else make decisions for them. The costs of doing so are often only apparent after some time. On using a system from heteronomous vendors such as Apple, Google, or Microsoft long enough, it will inevitably be changed in capricious and annoying ways. Those who abandon the virtue of freedom are forced to rationalize why accepting this abuse is actually a good thing. Meanwhile those who hold to freedom as a virtue do not. They either switch to a system that respects their autonomy, or they grit their teeth and bear the abuse without any need for calling evil good. For what it’s worth I agree one of the things autonomy grants is the ability to give it up. I’m willing to grudgingly use closed firmwares and graphics drivers for example, but I view it as an ethical compromise and not anything good.

shadowgovt 5y ago
> That is, the value of autonomy far exceeds that of any benefits of heteronomy We believe that we always gain more with autonomy. Unfortunately, it's simply not true for everyone. I'd hazard it's not true for most... That the set of people who can really make a computer dance if the architecture is open is a tiny, tiny set. The net harm were that to be the only option (i.e. if Apples and Microsofts were removed from the equation) would be significant. I have older family members that I must continuously run tech support for. Most of my time is spent pruning their choices to the set of only things they want the machine to do because a wider space leads to confusion and inability to complete tasks (when it isn't being used as an exploit vector by malicious actors taking advantage of the flexible nature of a general-computing architecture to phish them). None of this is to say nobody's architecture should be open and mutable, and I fight hard against any attempts to make closed the only option on the table. But most users aren't power users any more than most drivers want to replace their own spark plugs. Autonomy and heteronomy should, ideally, both be options on the table, and I see no value passing moral judgment on those who adopt either. For some, a self-run architecture is the freedom of the frontier; for others, it's the freedom to get eaten by wolves in the jungle.
- User23 5y ago
  First, I acknowledge that your given observations are accurate. We just evidently view them in light of different set of principles. I've also been family tech support and as often as not the problem is that some app or other stopped working properly or altogether after a system update. I often get complaints along the lines of "I used to do X this way and now I can't, can you put it back?" And I pretty much just have to say "no, I can't. You need to now do X in this new way," supposing it's still possible at all. More generally, I believe that the West, and perhaps the world, has been sliding toward ever greater heteronomy for several generations now. Not so long ago most drivers did replace their own spark plugs. Not so long ago virtually all computer software did respect the user's autonomy. And it's not like we're talking about the dark ages, this is all comfortably within living memory. On a similar note, the right to repair tractors is another big autonomy issue for farmers, especially smaller ones that are operating on razor thin margins. Another example is cooking. Also in living memory, virtually all food was cooked from scratch in the home. People had autonomy over what they put in their bodies. The submission to the heteronomy of a mostly processed food diet may well be responsible for a number of serious public health issues from endocrine disruption to obesity. I agree that many would be uncomfortable with having more autonomy. Nevertheless, we as a culture should value freedom and autonomy and hold them up as values to aspire to. As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others, but I just don't believe anyone truly benefits from having their autonomy taken away. By the way, I appreciate your spirit of pragmatism. I also try to be pragmatic. I recognize that in some matters heteronomy is socially beneficial. I simply believe we're striking a considerably suboptimal balance skewed ever further toward heteronomy. I think our social structures will become considerably less fragile if we work to encourage a culture of autonomy. Thank you for this exchange. I think you've laid out your position clearly and distinctly and I appreciate it.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    > As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others... I think that actually sugar-coats a truly cruel approach. It's not "some benefit more than others," it's "some benefit while others suffer." Pushing the autonomy slider to its limit is just breaking governance and letting the strong rule. Maximum freedom is nature red in tooth and claw. We build heteronomous structures to escape that chaos. Of course, pushing the slider all the way towards heteronomy is also terrible. But given these two thought experiments, I fail to see how one passes moral judgement on someone who likes the slider tweaked a bit further towards either extreme than I do... "Moral judgment," to my mind, implies an absolute virtue that is absent from the equation. It's a struggle for balance, not for supremacy.

by User23 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

> That is, the value of autonomy far exceeds that of any benefits of heteronomy We believe that we always gain more with autonomy. Unfortunately, it's simply not true for everyone. I'd hazard it's not true for most... That the set of people who can really make a computer dance if the architecture is open is a tiny, tiny set. The net harm were that to be the only option (i.e. if Apples and Microsofts were removed from the equation) would be significant. I have older family members that I must continuously run tech support for. Most of my time is spent pruning their choices to the set of only things they want the machine to do because a wider space leads to confusion and inability to complete tasks (when it isn't being used as an exploit vector by malicious actors taking advantage of the flexible nature of a general-computing architecture to phish them). None of this is to say nobody's architecture should be open and mutable, and I fight hard against any attempts to make closed the only option on the table. But most users aren't power users any more than most drivers want to replace their own spark plugs. Autonomy and heteronomy should, ideally, both be options on the table, and I see no value passing moral judgment on those who adopt either. For some, a self-run architecture is the freedom of the frontier; for others, it's the freedom to get eaten by wolves in the jungle.

User23 5y ago
First, I acknowledge that your given observations are accurate. We just evidently view them in light of different set of principles. I've also been family tech support and as often as not the problem is that some app or other stopped working properly or altogether after a system update. I often get complaints along the lines of "I used to do X this way and now I can't, can you put it back?" And I pretty much just have to say "no, I can't. You need to now do X in this new way," supposing it's still possible at all. More generally, I believe that the West, and perhaps the world, has been sliding toward ever greater heteronomy for several generations now. Not so long ago most drivers did replace their own spark plugs. Not so long ago virtually all computer software did respect the user's autonomy. And it's not like we're talking about the dark ages, this is all comfortably within living memory. On a similar note, the right to repair tractors is another big autonomy issue for farmers, especially smaller ones that are operating on razor thin margins. Another example is cooking. Also in living memory, virtually all food was cooked from scratch in the home. People had autonomy over what they put in their bodies. The submission to the heteronomy of a mostly processed food diet may well be responsible for a number of serious public health issues from endocrine disruption to obesity. I agree that many would be uncomfortable with having more autonomy. Nevertheless, we as a culture should value freedom and autonomy and hold them up as values to aspire to. As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others, but I just don't believe anyone truly benefits from having their autonomy taken away. By the way, I appreciate your spirit of pragmatism. I also try to be pragmatic. I recognize that in some matters heteronomy is socially beneficial. I simply believe we're striking a considerably suboptimal balance skewed ever further toward heteronomy. I think our social structures will become considerably less fragile if we work to encourage a culture of autonomy. Thank you for this exchange. I think you've laid out your position clearly and distinctly and I appreciate it.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  > As you say, some will benefit from autonomy more than others... I think that actually sugar-coats a truly cruel approach. It's not "some benefit more than others," it's "some benefit while others suffer." Pushing the autonomy slider to its limit is just breaking governance and letting the strong rule. Maximum freedom is nature red in tooth and claw. We build heteronomous structures to escape that chaos. Of course, pushing the slider all the way towards heteronomy is also terrible. But given these two thought experiments, I fail to see how one passes moral judgement on someone who likes the slider tweaked a bit further towards either extreme than I do... "Moral judgment," to my mind, implies an absolute virtue that is absent from the equation. It's a struggle for balance, not for supremacy.