4 ms·

I can also recommend "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul [0], which argues that technique (not just machines) is at odds with human autonomy and freedo

by rsolva 3y ago

I can also recommend "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul [0], which argues that technique (not just machines) is at odds with human autonomy and freedom. It seems paradoxical at first, given all the possibilities introduced by technology since the 50's. Are we not more free than ever before? Then again, considering what surveillance capitalism is doing to us today, it is hard to deny that we are constantly nudged into certain grooves by algorithms that is fed massive amounts of our own fine grained behavioral data. We crave autonomy, freedom and individuality. We often feel that we are unique and free. But zooming out, most of us are heavily formed by the environment around us, which nowadays consist of a lot of screen time and exposure to ads and content picked by algorithms, influencing many of our choices. It's an interesting perspective to ponder, that's for sure! [0] https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...

roenxi 3y ago
> ... it is hard to deny that we are constantly nudged into certain grooves by algorithms ... I don't see how that could impinge on freedom. We've been nudged into certain grooves by our emotions and instincts for as long as the species has existed. The "nudging" that corporations is exactly the nudging that evolution uses on us - and a huge number of the evolutionary nudges are stupid now (do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not. And all the instincts designed to operate in societies of 200 people are ineffective too. Why do we keep promoting tall people???). It is also just a fact that our existences are close reflections of the society around us. "Freedom" in some sense isn't about freedom to act, but freedom to influence our environment, by direct control in the case of owning land and economic action or more indirectly through free speech to influence the culture in ways powerful people might disagree with. Which is why the government is generally an anti-freedom influence. People use it to lock the world into being a certain way; that way usually turns out to be a long way short of optimal and the cost to change something once the law gets involved is high.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not. I see some signs that you've never been in a drug deal gone awry... > Why do we keep promoting tall people??? They have a better (over)view of the situation. But more seriously, there is also an argument to be made that free will is an illusion, at which point you have to wonder what "freedom" really means, if anything.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > > ... it is hard to deny that we are constantly nudged into certain grooves by algorithms ... > I don't see how that could impinge on freedom. It depends on what freedom youre trying to preserve. You can spin a story and use technology to share your own narrative with a known susceptible audience. Much like what we say in elections in the US and UK.
- EventH- 3y ago
  The fact that instinct's heuristics are not well-adapted to every situation does not change the above point that the various algorithms which nudge may (do) also detract from one's freedom. And there is an important difference between the two: instinct has been trained over eons to select for what is good for the organism (heuristic trade-offs notwithstanding). The algorithms have not, and often nudge toward choices that someone else would prefer we make.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    Read your Dawkins, evolution does not "select for what is good for the organism".
    - EventH- 3y ago
      Sure it does — there is a noisy optimization process, but more importantly an undeniable general trend which is the point.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > instinct has been trained over eons to select for what is good for the organism They have not, they've had around 2 centuries. There is very little about the current world that instincts have been trained on. They are misleading and unhelpful on almost every topic. We keep seeing stupid mobs form and ignorantly break stuff for no useful reason which should be #1 on everyone's threat model. The algorithms are positively benign compared to something like the US war frenzy after 9/11, or the constant rolling back of industrial prowess that the US has managed for the last 50 years because people keep accepting death-by-thousand-cuts because they don't have instincts for risk assessment. Communism was welcomed in with cheers, killed millions and we still struggle to convince everyone to have a positive gut-feel response to capitalism and free markets.
loa_in_ 3y ago
Also trading goods, whether at a market or otherwise used to be an equal competition. Nowadays abstract companies use abstract algorithms and massive data sets of not only sales but also data from other sources like the ads customer ever clicked on or hovered over to optimize the price for maximum profit. This happens to consumers and intermediaries alike. Prices are maximised as much as they can be while still allowing enough sales to sustain the system. There's no fairness in pricing nor a human element most of the time. It's automatically kicking the customer and patting them on the back at the same time in real time.
life-and-quiet 3y ago
I think "What Technology Wants" has the best response to this argument: it's correct, but most of us choose to live in a world of high technology anyway. He points out for example that Ted Kaczynski, who went to live in a hut in the woods, "had the freedom to harvest the potatoes whenever he wanted." Technology and automation ARE constraining, and their use does diminish freedom, but they also produce a world of options that is unimaginable to previous generations. So I think WTW and Cal Newport and people like that have it right. The best we can all do as a society is to be aware of the influences of the technologies we select, to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, and to continuously make intentional choices.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, That is great so long as you have that choice. Yes, we still can, but that is getting more and more difficult and socially costly to do. Being in control of technology used to be about knowledge. It was the "geeks/nerds" who had an invisible advantage (until everyone else caught up) Digital technology took over the world, so we say "were all geeks now". Today, being in control of technology is about courage and social self-determination/autonomy - it is the "weirdos" who have the upper hand in an enshitified surveillance society. Likewise, we're all going to become weirdos eventually. If they're the same thing then maybe being a geek/nerd was never about technical capability in the first place, but about the ability to see the future more clearly.
  - weireduuh4 3y ago
    On DOP#1 we today have Autonomy and freedom...(sounding like a weekends true optimistic party-victiom) ...let me conclude Are we not more free than ever before? -surveillance capitalism -constantly nudged by algorithms fed by behavioral data -exposure to ads -influencing many -influence people use to lock the world into being a certain way A nudge may (do) also detract (do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not.) -Why do promoting keep things wich people doesn't are or preciselier have/and be, that often seem to nudge people toward choices that someone else would prefer we make. Prices are maximised as much as they can be while still allowing enough sales to sustain the system. There's no fairness in pricing nor a human element, it's automatically kicking the customer and patting them on the back at the same time in real time. -They are making us more human, in terms of that free will is an illusion, at which point you have to wonder what "freedom" really means, if anything, and so the best we all can do as a society is to be aware, rejecting things don't serv our aims (celashion), and to continuously make intentional choices. Promoting: "As you have that choice!" Hey wasn't there a "Yes cynism is the real good stuff"-topic two weeks ago... hope that wasn't too...'whenever'... P-: (moshes-head-rising victory-fingers)
dist-epoch 3y ago
Half of the nitrogen in our bodies comes from industrially produced fertilizer. Do we really have the freedom to stop that process now? Same with electricity. Do we have the freedom to stop it, in developed countries? On a population level, we stopped being free a long time ago.
- rsolva 3y ago
  Exactly! Man is trapped by techniques and methods invented and practiced by our ancestors. One could argue that it is still possible to escape modernity by moving into the wildernes and live primitively, but in most cases that would be illegal and you would become a hunted outcast. The closest I have come to wiggle loose from the inertia of progress of technique, is moving to the countryside, growing some of my own food and not working a regular nine to five job. But I still love builing stuff with computers ;)

by rsolva 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

> ... it is hard to deny that we are constantly nudged into certain grooves by algorithms ... I don't see how that could impinge on freedom. We've been nudged into certain grooves by our emotions and instincts for as long as the species has existed. The "nudging" that corporations is exactly the nudging that evolution uses on us - and a huge number of the evolutionary nudges are stupid now (do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not. And all the instincts designed to operate in societies of 200 people are ineffective too. Why do we keep promoting tall people???). It is also just a fact that our existences are close reflections of the society around us. "Freedom" in some sense isn't about freedom to act, but freedom to influence our environment, by direct control in the case of owning land and economic action or more indirectly through free speech to influence the culture in ways powerful people might disagree with. Which is why the government is generally an anti-freedom influence. People use it to lock the world into being a certain way; that way usually turns out to be a long way short of optimal and the cost to change something once the law gets involved is high.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not. I see some signs that you've never been in a drug deal gone awry... > Why do we keep promoting tall people??? They have a better (over)view of the situation. But more seriously, there is also an argument to be made that free will is an illusion, at which point you have to wonder what "freedom" really means, if anything.
hnlmorg 3y ago
> > ... it is hard to deny that we are constantly nudged into certain grooves by algorithms ... > I don't see how that could impinge on freedom. It depends on what freedom youre trying to preserve. You can spin a story and use technology to share your own narrative with a known susceptible audience. Much like what we say in elections in the US and UK.
EventH- 3y ago
The fact that instinct's heuristics are not well-adapted to every situation does not change the above point that the various algorithms which nudge may (do) also detract from one's freedom. And there is an important difference between the two: instinct has been trained over eons to select for what is good for the organism (heuristic trade-offs notwithstanding). The algorithms have not, and often nudge toward choices that someone else would prefer we make.
- voxic11 3y ago
  Read your Dawkins, evolution does not "select for what is good for the organism".
  - EventH- 3y ago
    Sure it does — there is a noisy optimization process, but more importantly an undeniable general trend which is the point.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > instinct has been trained over eons to select for what is good for the organism They have not, they've had around 2 centuries. There is very little about the current world that instincts have been trained on. They are misleading and unhelpful on almost every topic. We keep seeing stupid mobs form and ignorantly break stuff for no useful reason which should be #1 on everyone's threat model. The algorithms are positively benign compared to something like the US war frenzy after 9/11, or the constant rolling back of industrial prowess that the US has managed for the last 50 years because people keep accepting death-by-thousand-cuts because they don't have instincts for risk assessment. Communism was welcomed in with cheers, killed millions and we still struggle to convince everyone to have a positive gut-feel response to capitalism and free markets.

loa_in_ 3y ago

Also trading goods, whether at a market or otherwise used to be an equal competition. Nowadays abstract companies use abstract algorithms and massive data sets of not only sales but also data from other sources like the ads customer ever clicked on or hovered over to optimize the price for maximum profit. This happens to consumers and intermediaries alike. Prices are maximised as much as they can be while still allowing enough sales to sustain the system. There's no fairness in pricing nor a human element most of the time. It's automatically kicking the customer and patting them on the back at the same time in real time.

life-and-quiet 3y ago

I think "What Technology Wants" has the best response to this argument: it's correct, but most of us choose to live in a world of high technology anyway. He points out for example that Ted Kaczynski, who went to live in a hut in the woods, "had the freedom to harvest the potatoes whenever he wanted." Technology and automation ARE constraining, and their use does diminish freedom, but they also produce a world of options that is unimaginable to previous generations. So I think WTW and Cal Newport and people like that have it right. The best we can all do as a society is to be aware of the influences of the technologies we select, to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, and to continuously make intentional choices.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, That is great so long as you have that choice. Yes, we still can, but that is getting more and more difficult and socially costly to do. Being in control of technology used to be about knowledge. It was the "geeks/nerds" who had an invisible advantage (until everyone else caught up) Digital technology took over the world, so we say "were all geeks now". Today, being in control of technology is about courage and social self-determination/autonomy - it is the "weirdos" who have the upper hand in an enshitified surveillance society. Likewise, we're all going to become weirdos eventually. If they're the same thing then maybe being a geek/nerd was never about technical capability in the first place, but about the ability to see the future more clearly.
- weireduuh4 3y ago
  On DOP#1 we today have Autonomy and freedom...(sounding like a weekends true optimistic party-victiom) ...let me conclude Are we not more free than ever before? -surveillance capitalism -constantly nudged by algorithms fed by behavioral data -exposure to ads -influencing many -influence people use to lock the world into being a certain way A nudge may (do) also detract (do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not.) -Why do promoting keep things wich people doesn't are or preciselier have/and be, that often seem to nudge people toward choices that someone else would prefer we make. Prices are maximised as much as they can be while still allowing enough sales to sustain the system. There's no fairness in pricing nor a human element, it's automatically kicking the customer and patting them on the back at the same time in real time. -They are making us more human, in terms of that free will is an illusion, at which point you have to wonder what "freedom" really means, if anything, and so the best we all can do as a society is to be aware, rejecting things don't serv our aims (celashion), and to continuously make intentional choices. Promoting: "As you have that choice!" Hey wasn't there a "Yes cynism is the real good stuff"-topic two weeks ago... hope that wasn't too...'whenever'... P-: (moshes-head-rising victory-fingers)

dist-epoch 3y ago

Half of the nitrogen in our bodies comes from industrially produced fertilizer. Do we really have the freedom to stop that process now? Same with electricity. Do we have the freedom to stop it, in developed countries? On a population level, we stopped being free a long time ago.

rsolva 3y ago
Exactly! Man is trapped by techniques and methods invented and practiced by our ancestors. One could argue that it is still possible to escape modernity by moving into the wildernes and live primitively, but in most cases that would be illegal and you would become a hunted outcast. The closest I have come to wiggle loose from the inertia of progress of technique, is moving to the countryside, growing some of my own food and not working a regular nine to five job. But I still love builing stuff with computers ;)