4 ms·

This article's beginning is eyeroll inducing, but when it gets to covering the actual critiques of how technology has shaped and influenced the world good point

This article's beginning is eyeroll inducing, but when it gets to covering the actual critiques of how technology has shaped and influenced the world good points are made. I've noticed similar things. I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. But I do know that it's important for the people who care about these things to engage with it. I know we'll be even worse off if the tech people that care about how tech impacts the world and care about leveling the playing field drop out of the field. Tech has become increasingly soulless. None of us can afford to let that trend win.

rndmind 11y ago
hear, hear! I think organization and exclusivity is needed in the online tech community. For the first 10-12 years, forums and websites were mostly filled with intelligent and like-minded people. However, over the past couple of years it seems, the discussion boards and popular online sites have been overburdened with an influx of ignorant viewpoints, 'scuse the word ignorant, but a better description eludes me. The point I would like to make is, exclusivity and organization would be a good thing for the altruistic tech community.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > The point I would like to make is, exclusivity and organization would be a good thing for the altruistic tech community. Agreed. Not in an elitist sense, but in the sense that no amount of excellence in technological skill excuses being a a terrible person who drives others away. Choosing not to exclude anyone from a community is still an exclusionary practice: it drives away people who aren't willing to put up with the worst anyone in that community serves up. So if you're going to end up excluding people no matter what you do, better to actively choose to exclude the awful people rather than leaving them around to drive away others.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I've noticed similar things. I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. You say that as though there exists a unifying driving force behind technological change that could choose to change direction, rather than a million people all acting independently or in loose groups. If you want to see technology used as a force for "leveling the playing field", start a company or a charitable organization to do exactly that. Or, failing that, pitch a convincing vision and to a lot of people who have such organizations. Or join one of the many organizations already working on that. > But I do know that it's important for the people who care about these things to engage with it. I know we'll be even worse off if the tech people that care about how tech impacts the world and care about leveling the playing field drop out of the field. The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand (as well as implying that the latter have only the best interests of the world at heart but are stymied by those darn technologists). That leaves out two much more relevant groups: the substantial set of technologists who are out to change the world (and not in the trite "by creating another social network" sense), as well as the people who understand technology well enough to level useful criticisms about its direction and seek to influence that direction (for instance, the EFF and the FSF). There are plenty of people and organizations out there that are using technology to improve people's lives in numerous ways. More such people and organizations would always be welcome, but I personally find the bleak picture painted by the article quite unwarranted.
- djcapelis 11y ago
  > The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand Yes, and that's unadulterated bullshit, which is why I said the first half of the article was eyeroll inducing. > You say that as though there exists a unifying driving force behind technological change that could choose to change direction, rather than a million people all acting independently or in loose groups. Actually nothing I said assumes that, because I don't. However, tech does have change in aggregate and each of the people involve bring whatever push they have to that soup. Which is why it's important for people who care about things, say, more important than money, to be involved in the field. > If you want to see technology used as a force for "leveling the playing field", start a company or a charitable organization to do exactly that. Or, failing that, pitch a convincing vision and to a lot of people who have such organizations. Or join one of the many organizations already working on that. No shit.
panzagl 11y ago
If technologists shouldn't try to change the world, who should? I guess we should just roll over and do whatever the politicians and bankers want, they've done such a brilliant job so far.
- djcapelis 11y ago
  I absolutely think technologists should try and change the world. I just think far too many of us aren't doing it. We're focused on things like... growth curves. You sure we haven't already started to roll over and do whatever the politicians and bankers want?
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
  Clearly, chefs and concert pianists. Edit: journalists.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It wasn't technologists that overthrew King James II and declared the supremacy of Parliament, founded the United States, freed the slaves, pushed for universal suffrage and civil rights, etc. It won't be technologists that end the war on drugs, bring marriage rights to everyone, implement universal healthcare and basic income, etc. Having gone to engineering school, I used to have the same arrogance for superior role of engineers in society. As I have gotten older, I have come to realize that while engineers are important, other people play very important roles in progress.
  - reagency 11y ago
    The internet has been incredibly powerful in giving isolated queer folk a place to come together and organize.
- worldadventurer 11y ago
  A technologist should absolutely try to change the world for the better, just like anyone else in other professions. As responsible humans, I feel that we have an obligation to help others, especially those in need. I believe that us techies have this powerful skill to leverage technology to make change at greater scale and more cost effectively than possible ever before. But, we need to careful in wielding this powerful skill and make sure that we're having lasting positive changes; RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) are a great way of measuring and verifying the impact of our work. We're a team of techies who believe that we can change the world. We've built engageSPARK.com (a not-for-profit social business) to help organizations on the ground amplify their work through the use of Voice IVR, SMS Text, and Missed Call campaigns by making it super easy for non-techies to build interactive campaigns in just minutes in any country; think of us as "Twilio for non-techies". We spent a lot of time on our UX making it simple. As an example of our work, we did a large program with Mercy Corps to help 20,000 survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines learn how to budget and save money through interactive soap operas with quizzes (to measure comprehension at the end of each episode) delivered via Voice Calls and via SMS. They did an RCT and found amazing results for the people who received the campaigns via Voice Calls: 106% increase in use of savings products. The response rates for quizzes were 4.5% for SMS vs. 48% for Voice Calls. There have now been a few RCTs that show that Voice is a powerful medium in developing countries for behavior change (unlike in the west, people in most developing countries are not robocalled regularly and actually pick up most phone calls!). If you're a technologist and want to use your powerful skills to help alleviate poverty, come join our team! Our stack is JS, Python/Django, Java, and we're converting the back end from Java to Go microservices. And I strongly recommend reading Kentaro's book (from the nytimes article) as a necessary introduction when thinking about bringing technology to people in need. The world is littered with failed tech projects that were meant to alleviate poverty; let's make sure that we're not adding to the pile.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. Technology is like a stick. You could use it to sow seeds into the ground, or to beat people up with it. Its purpose is entirely infused into it by its user. The nature of the stick is irrelevant, it's the wielder that really matters.
- djcapelis 11y ago
  Absolutely, but isn't it interesting how giving the entire world sticks doesn't always lead to equality? First off, we aren't equally giving everyone in the world sticks. And second off, I think I agree with the point that even if we did, those sticks would likely end up being used to accentuate divides, not smooth them. Believe me, I'm not saying we should go backwards. I'm just saying real effects come from our work and it makes sense to concern ourselves with them.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    It does make sense to concern ourselves with the results. At the same time, if we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by our inevitable inability to predict the results of our work, we will never accomplish anything.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Technology is like a stick. You could use it to sow seeds into the ground, or to beat people up with it. Its purpose is entirely infused into it by its user. The nature of the stick is irrelevant, it's the wielder that really matters. Not all technology is neutral; some technologies are primarily used to help or to harm, and many technologies enforce policies in lieu of humans. It's reasonable to ask people to think about what they're doing when they develop technology.
  - Florin_Andrei 11y ago
    It's true. After all, building a tank is pretty much a declaration of purpose and intent. I was trying to emphasize that the responsibility is overwhelmingly resting on the user's shoulders. When it comes to doing good vs. doing bad things, technology itself is merely an accessory. We should pay attention to people first, technology second. But yes, we should pay some attention to technology - I agree with that.
forgottenpass 11y ago
I've noticed similar things. I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. Why would technology ever get us there? It's a tool that magnifies the power of the one wielding it. It already hit it's maximum for empowering the underdog; because the already-empowered noticed and realized they needed to get in on this technology thing too. Changes have to come from government policy or lawbreaking - that's how the existing power structures protects their positions of power. Their systems adapt just fine to technological progress. I know we'll be even worse off if the tech people that care about how tech impacts the world and care about leveling the playing field drop out of the field. Building tech to empower others for them (governments, companies, etc) is worse than dropping out of the field. Not only is it not helping, it's actively hurting. Yet here were all are anyway.
mc32 11y ago
Maybe we can ask whether being better off in absolute terms is better or worse than being better off relatively. So while technology can multiply effects, let's say, that would mean it can multiply it for all but what it doesn't do is smooth it. Smoothing would take judgement and external manipulation to correct a course.

rndmind 11y ago

hear, hear! I think organization and exclusivity is needed in the online tech community. For the first 10-12 years, forums and websites were mostly filled with intelligent and like-minded people. However, over the past couple of years it seems, the discussion boards and popular online sites have been overburdened with an influx of ignorant viewpoints, 'scuse the word ignorant, but a better description eludes me. The point I would like to make is, exclusivity and organization would be a good thing for the altruistic tech community.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> The point I would like to make is, exclusivity and organization would be a good thing for the altruistic tech community. Agreed. Not in an elitist sense, but in the sense that no amount of excellence in technological skill excuses being a a terrible person who drives others away. Choosing not to exclude anyone from a community is still an exclusionary practice: it drives away people who aren't willing to put up with the worst anyone in that community serves up. So if you're going to end up excluding people no matter what you do, better to actively choose to exclude the awful people rather than leaving them around to drive away others.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> I've noticed similar things. I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. You say that as though there exists a unifying driving force behind technological change that could choose to change direction, rather than a million people all acting independently or in loose groups. If you want to see technology used as a force for "leveling the playing field", start a company or a charitable organization to do exactly that. Or, failing that, pitch a convincing vision and to a lot of people who have such organizations. Or join one of the many organizations already working on that. > But I do know that it's important for the people who care about these things to engage with it. I know we'll be even worse off if the tech people that care about how tech impacts the world and care about leveling the playing field drop out of the field. The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand (as well as implying that the latter have only the best interests of the world at heart but are stymied by those darn technologists). That leaves out two much more relevant groups: the substantial set of technologists who are out to change the world (and not in the trite "by creating another social network" sense), as well as the people who understand technology well enough to level useful criticisms about its direction and seek to influence that direction (for instance, the EFF and the FSF). There are plenty of people and organizations out there that are using technology to improve people's lives in numerous ways. More such people and organizations would always be welcome, but I personally find the bleak picture painted by the article quite unwarranted.

djcapelis 11y ago
> The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand Yes, and that's unadulterated bullshit, which is why I said the first half of the article was eyeroll inducing. > You say that as though there exists a unifying driving force behind technological change that could choose to change direction, rather than a million people all acting independently or in loose groups. Actually nothing I said assumes that, because I don't. However, tech does have change in aggregate and each of the people involve bring whatever push they have to that soup. Which is why it's important for people who care about things, say, more important than money, to be involved in the field. > If you want to see technology used as a force for "leveling the playing field", start a company or a charitable organization to do exactly that. Or, failing that, pitch a convincing vision and to a lot of people who have such organizations. Or join one of the many organizations already working on that. No shit.

panzagl 11y ago

If technologists shouldn't try to change the world, who should? I guess we should just roll over and do whatever the politicians and bankers want, they've done such a brilliant job so far.

djcapelis 11y ago
I absolutely think technologists should try and change the world. I just think far too many of us aren't doing it. We're focused on things like... growth curves. You sure we haven't already started to roll over and do whatever the politicians and bankers want?
0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
Clearly, chefs and concert pianists. Edit: journalists.
rayiner 11y ago
It wasn't technologists that overthrew King James II and declared the supremacy of Parliament, founded the United States, freed the slaves, pushed for universal suffrage and civil rights, etc. It won't be technologists that end the war on drugs, bring marriage rights to everyone, implement universal healthcare and basic income, etc. Having gone to engineering school, I used to have the same arrogance for superior role of engineers in society. As I have gotten older, I have come to realize that while engineers are important, other people play very important roles in progress.
- reagency 11y ago
  The internet has been incredibly powerful in giving isolated queer folk a place to come together and organize.
worldadventurer 11y ago
A technologist should absolutely try to change the world for the better, just like anyone else in other professions. As responsible humans, I feel that we have an obligation to help others, especially those in need. I believe that us techies have this powerful skill to leverage technology to make change at greater scale and more cost effectively than possible ever before. But, we need to careful in wielding this powerful skill and make sure that we're having lasting positive changes; RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) are a great way of measuring and verifying the impact of our work. We're a team of techies who believe that we can change the world. We've built engageSPARK.com (a not-for-profit social business) to help organizations on the ground amplify their work through the use of Voice IVR, SMS Text, and Missed Call campaigns by making it super easy for non-techies to build interactive campaigns in just minutes in any country; think of us as "Twilio for non-techies". We spent a lot of time on our UX making it simple. As an example of our work, we did a large program with Mercy Corps to help 20,000 survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines learn how to budget and save money through interactive soap operas with quizzes (to measure comprehension at the end of each episode) delivered via Voice Calls and via SMS. They did an RCT and found amazing results for the people who received the campaigns via Voice Calls: 106% increase in use of savings products. The response rates for quizzes were 4.5% for SMS vs. 48% for Voice Calls. There have now been a few RCTs that show that Voice is a powerful medium in developing countries for behavior change (unlike in the west, people in most developing countries are not robocalled regularly and actually pick up most phone calls!). If you're a technologist and want to use your powerful skills to help alleviate poverty, come join our team! Our stack is JS, Python/Django, Java, and we're converting the back end from Java to Go microservices. And I strongly recommend reading Kentaro's book (from the nytimes article) as a necessary introduction when thinking about bringing technology to people in need. The world is littered with failed tech projects that were meant to alleviate poverty; let's make sure that we're not adding to the pile.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

> I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. Technology is like a stick. You could use it to sow seeds into the ground, or to beat people up with it. Its purpose is entirely infused into it by its user. The nature of the stick is irrelevant, it's the wielder that really matters.

djcapelis 11y ago
Absolutely, but isn't it interesting how giving the entire world sticks doesn't always lead to equality? First off, we aren't equally giving everyone in the world sticks. And second off, I think I agree with the point that even if we did, those sticks would likely end up being used to accentuate divides, not smooth them. Believe me, I'm not saying we should go backwards. I'm just saying real effects come from our work and it makes sense to concern ourselves with them.
- Kalium 11y ago
  It does make sense to concern ourselves with the results. At the same time, if we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by our inevitable inability to predict the results of our work, we will never accomplish anything.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Technology is like a stick. You could use it to sow seeds into the ground, or to beat people up with it. Its purpose is entirely infused into it by its user. The nature of the stick is irrelevant, it's the wielder that really matters. Not all technology is neutral; some technologies are primarily used to help or to harm, and many technologies enforce policies in lieu of humans. It's reasonable to ask people to think about what they're doing when they develop technology.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  It's true. After all, building a tank is pretty much a declaration of purpose and intent. I was trying to emphasize that the responsibility is overwhelmingly resting on the user's shoulders. When it comes to doing good vs. doing bad things, technology itself is merely an accessory. We should pay attention to people first, technology second. But yes, we should pay some attention to technology - I agree with that.

forgottenpass 11y ago

I've noticed similar things. I'm not sure how we really get to the point where technology is a force used for leveling the playing field and not a force used for exacerbating it. Why would technology ever get us there? It's a tool that magnifies the power of the one wielding it. It already hit it's maximum for empowering the underdog; because the already-empowered noticed and realized they needed to get in on this technology thing too. Changes have to come from government policy or lawbreaking - that's how the existing power structures protects their positions of power. Their systems adapt just fine to technological progress. I know we'll be even worse off if the tech people that care about how tech impacts the world and care about leveling the playing field drop out of the field. Building tech to empower others for them (governments, companies, etc) is worse than dropping out of the field. Not only is it not helping, it's actively hurting. Yet here were all are anyway.

mc32 11y ago

Maybe we can ask whether being better off in absolute terms is better or worse than being better off relatively. So while technology can multiply effects, let's say, that would mean it can multiply it for all but what it doesn't do is smooth it. Smoothing would take judgement and external manipulation to correct a course.