3 ms·
I really like the article (less so the title), but it reads like the "For" side of a two-sided debate - a myopic (albeit valid) criticism of the worst aspects o
by MrJohz 4y ago
I really like the article (less so the title), but it reads like the "For" side of a two-sided debate - a myopic (albeit valid) criticism of the worst aspects of computer cruelty. But I think this is one of those areas where there is another side to the discussion, and the truth probably lies somewhere between (or perhaps better said: it lies in both sides simultaneously, and we as a society, and especially as technologists and software developers, decide which truth to draw out).
So, here is my "Against" argument:
Computers are spaces of almost complete freedom. More than almost any other creative or expressive medium, there is the possibility to do anything without limit.
I can write, but unlike a book or a newspaper, where my words can at best be statically illustrated by photos or diagrams, I can show videos, annotate diagrams step-by-step, and allow my reader to interact with my words. My drawings need not be limited to a 2D plane, and my models need not be limited to the 3D world. When I create something, I don't just have one copy of it that I must never lose, but I have an infinite amount of it that I can share freely as I want. When I tell a story to someone, they don't have to be in the room to ask questions, or contribute back.
This is near-unbounded creativity. And it is creativity without sharp edges. Due to computers, animation has spread from being a locked-down, family-friendly art form available almost exclusively to the largest media companies, to a toy used to create dumb fights between famous media characters, or extensive porn collections, or touching and heart-wrenching dramas. Computers have democratised art in a way analogous to the printing press, or the television, and by doing so destroyed the power of censors and critics in deciding what gets shown, and what does not.
That escape from critique and censorship is a particularly important idea that's worth emphasising. Yes, we have a cinema industry that only wants to show the same handful of blockbusters every week, but services like Netflix and Amazon have created a space for niche films and television series to thrive, and even be reincarnated. Critique has become a more flexible space, where rather than rely on elite opinion-makers to lay their judgements down, I now have far more voices to listen to, but more flexibility in which ones I choose to accept. And yet, rather than narrowing my choices down into a private echo chamber, this variety of voices arguably provides more chances to hear new opinions and experience media that I wouldn't have thought of before.
Computers are not inherently oppressive. If anything, they are inherently freeing. With computers we are not just able to create more things, but more people can create things that ever before, opening up voices that simply wouldn't be heard in previous generations. Moreover, those people can share their creations with more people than ever before, bringing new ideas of freedom into true oppressive states.
- vouwfietsman 4y agoIndeed it lies in both sides simultaneously, as all your examples have a free and oppressive side to them as well. It seems the freedom lies with the individual and his control over his own computer, and the oppression lies with larger platforms that enforce rules on the individual outside his control. Computers have democratized art and opinion, but the distribution of that art and opinion is done through centralized platforms, which are curated/censored using automated programs ("the algorithm"). I think computers are neither inherently oppressive or freeing, and I think that is also the point of the article. Computers are -exactly- what we make them do, and the word -exactly- is what is explored, and judged, as easily leading to oppression if given power over the inidividual. Power over the individual sounds ominous, but what I basically mean is that a computer decides over you, instead of for you. For example: youtube decides if your video is monetized, some AI decides if you get a loan, or get into a country, or get random checks at the airport, or what you see on youtube, etc etc.