4 ms·

Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology, and accusations of "Luddite" at the slightest hin

Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology, and accusations of "Luddite" at the slightest hint of not being 100% on board with the latest fad technology make this discussion seem in bad faith. Most techies I know do not have a skeptical eye for technology, even though IMO they should. This shit is being used to spy on and manipulate us with the data they gather. At what point is it okay to say "no"? My view of the culture says techies never say no to new shiny. We need a new era of carefulness in computing, both as programmers and as users. We need to demand better accountability. As long as the leaders we have now are still there tomorrow, I'm afraid this goal will never happen. You need a nation who cares more about its people than its GDP to achieve that, and I posit no nation on Earth has that level of care for its people.

kevinventullo 3y ago
My view of the culture says techies never say no to new shiny The only people I know who remotely care about things like data privacy and GDPR are techies. I personally will never install a “smart home” device.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Yes, one must generally be technically inclined to be one of the careful ones, but as we both know, that brand of techie isn't as common.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
luddites were not skeptical of technology, or even against it. They were against the way in which factory owners used technology to illegally displace them (as workers) and to falsely advertise the resulting textiles (selling low quality goods while claiming they were of higher quality) in order to undercut them and put them out of business.
- chii 3y ago
  The customer is responsible for accepting the level of quality of said goods. And it seems overwhelmingly that they (thru their action, rather than words), prefer to have cheaper, lower quality goods as long as it passes some threshold. Therefore, if a machine surpasses this threshold, they will win marketshare.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    It's fascinating to me how capital owners are never ever responsible for anything despite having maximal agency.
    - chii 3y ago
      > maximal agency how are the capital owners deciding what a consumer would choose to spend their money on?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        Billions of dollars in my bank accounts, the nerves of national infrastructure run through my hands, my face plastered across the infosphere, yet I am but a helpless pawn of the median consumer!
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    If I understand you correctly, selling counterfeit/falsely marketed goods is only a problem if enough buyers can tell the difference?
    - selestify 3y ago
      No, they never said anything about lying. That would be selling something the customer didn’t paying for. Selling lower quality goods like the article mentions is not a problem if the customers are fine with it given the lower price of the goods. The customer is responsible for making their own decisions about whether to prioritize cost or quality. As the person you were replying to says, by their actions (purchasing the cheaper, automated cloth), you can tell that the customers to appear to vastly prefer the cheaper, poor quality cloth. Who are we to tell them their preferences are wrong? Edit: I see your original comment. Where the heck did you get that factory owners were doing illegal worker displacement or doing false advertisement? I don’t see that claim in the article.
Aerroon 3y ago
>Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. >You need a nation who cares more about its people than its GDP to achieve that, and I posit no nation on Earth has that level of care for its people. And it will come at the expense of future generations. All the advancements of yesterday are what make our modern comforts possible. If we stop that in some redistribution fantasy then tomorrow will not be an improvement over today.
- jprete 3y ago
  > I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. This is totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to the GP's point.
  - selestify 3y ago
    It is not irrelevant because higher GDP is exactly what enables many of the conveniences of modern society. Nations ignoring GDP would mean putting access to these amenities at risk as well.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Do you live in a binary world, or an analog one? I mean, if you believe you live in a binary world everything is pretty easy. It's a one or a zero. Capitalism, or some kind of hellish pit of communism. That is not the real world. Instead it is a moderation of forces. Capitalist robber barons would enslave you just as quickly as the most brutal authoritarian would, if allowed. We succeed not because we let the captains of industry do what they like, for we know their greed can never be sated. Instead we have we share are progress in a way that benefits humanity and not the few. We strive to make the world better and not just ourselves richer.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Then how did this current world order come to pass? There is no inherent force at play or divine will that stops those "robber barons" from doing all of that. The government isn't given onto us by the almighty, it's something people created and upkeep. Those same instincts that created that would also moderate all of the evil you think people would do.

kevinventullo 3y ago

My view of the culture says techies never say no to new shiny The only people I know who remotely care about things like data privacy and GDPR are techies. I personally will never install a “smart home” device.

zlg_codes 3y ago
Yes, one must generally be technically inclined to be one of the careful ones, but as we both know, that brand of techie isn't as common.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

luddites were not skeptical of technology, or even against it. They were against the way in which factory owners used technology to illegally displace them (as workers) and to falsely advertise the resulting textiles (selling low quality goods while claiming they were of higher quality) in order to undercut them and put them out of business.

chii 3y ago
The customer is responsible for accepting the level of quality of said goods. And it seems overwhelmingly that they (thru their action, rather than words), prefer to have cheaper, lower quality goods as long as it passes some threshold. Therefore, if a machine surpasses this threshold, they will win marketshare.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It's fascinating to me how capital owners are never ever responsible for anything despite having maximal agency.
  - chii 3y ago
    > maximal agency how are the capital owners deciding what a consumer would choose to spend their money on?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Billions of dollars in my bank accounts, the nerves of national infrastructure run through my hands, my face plastered across the infosphere, yet I am but a helpless pawn of the median consumer!
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  If I understand you correctly, selling counterfeit/falsely marketed goods is only a problem if enough buyers can tell the difference?
  - selestify 3y ago
    No, they never said anything about lying. That would be selling something the customer didn’t paying for. Selling lower quality goods like the article mentions is not a problem if the customers are fine with it given the lower price of the goods. The customer is responsible for making their own decisions about whether to prioritize cost or quality. As the person you were replying to says, by their actions (purchasing the cheaper, automated cloth), you can tell that the customers to appear to vastly prefer the cheaper, poor quality cloth. Who are we to tell them their preferences are wrong? Edit: I see your original comment. Where the heck did you get that factory owners were doing illegal worker displacement or doing false advertisement? I don’t see that claim in the article.

Aerroon 3y ago

>Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. >You need a nation who cares more about its people than its GDP to achieve that, and I posit no nation on Earth has that level of care for its people. And it will come at the expense of future generations. All the advancements of yesterday are what make our modern comforts possible. If we stop that in some redistribution fantasy then tomorrow will not be an improvement over today.

jprete 3y ago
> I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. This is totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to the GP's point.
- selestify 3y ago
  It is not irrelevant because higher GDP is exactly what enables many of the conveniences of modern society. Nations ignoring GDP would mean putting access to these amenities at risk as well.
pixl97 3y ago
Do you live in a binary world, or an analog one? I mean, if you believe you live in a binary world everything is pretty easy. It's a one or a zero. Capitalism, or some kind of hellish pit of communism. That is not the real world. Instead it is a moderation of forces. Capitalist robber barons would enslave you just as quickly as the most brutal authoritarian would, if allowed. We succeed not because we let the captains of industry do what they like, for we know their greed can never be sated. Instead we have we share are progress in a way that benefits humanity and not the few. We strive to make the world better and not just ourselves richer.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Then how did this current world order come to pass? There is no inherent force at play or divine will that stops those "robber barons" from doing all of that. The government isn't given onto us by the almighty, it's something people created and upkeep. Those same instincts that created that would also moderate all of the evil you think people would do.