tech is not the problem, corporations are.
Agree. It’s not the tech it’s how it’s used and how business owners drive the product development and timelines.
More specifically, it’s capitalism that is the problem, not tech.
yes, that is the core of the problem. But its also too abstract to target at the moment. Those who understand dont need pointing out that it needs to go and those who dont might be able to at least see the “boils” if they cant see the disease.
I disagree about such a generalization.
There are very few instances where people decide to be dumb and use technology for it but in general my life is much better thanks to technology.
My job exists due to technology, the Internet allows me to work from home, a washing machine washes my clothes, I can order food in the middle of a meeting and have it delivered on my lunch pause, I can speak to my family half a world away everyday, with video, for free, I can have the answer to any question in seconds from my a tiny device in my pocket, my car brakes automatically if I’m distracted (and heats up before I sit down in the morning)… you get the deal.
I hear you, but the writer isn’t concerned with “can”: If you replaced “can have the answer to any question in seconds from my a tiny device in my pocket” with “must” then you can see their dissatisfaction.
if I went to a restaurant and was told that I had to install and use their app to order their food, I would fucking leave. If it was the only restaurant left in town then I’d have much less choice in the matter. The insidious nature of technology is that it changes “can” with “must”.
I agree, and good for you for leaving the restaurant. You could open a competing restaurant that doesn’t use apps and let people vote with their wallets. It’s not the nature of technology, its the decision of some people who are bad at knowing their customers. I don’t “have to” wash my clothes in the washing machine, but you bet I won’t even think about doing it manually. Forcing the use of an app is like only offering a vegan selection. If your customer didn’t ask for it you are going to have a bad time. If you are the only place in town is a monopoly problem, and a different discussion.
Having to use an app to order food might be slightly annoying, but it beats working 12h a day in the field to feed my familiy. It’s the firstest of first world problems.
In fantasy land you can open a competing restaurant. Back here on earth not only is that not an option for 99% of the population, most people are stuck with the couple choices they have in town and when tech comes in and forces the enshitificstion of services in order to pump stock price you’re stuck just eating this shit forever. That’s the problem. You seem to believe in “the invisible hand of the free market” when that simply doesn’t exist. Consumers aren’t rational. Investors aren’t rational. And the market is anything but free. Big tech is working really hard to make sure they have a stranglehold on every industry to make it worse and trap people into using their platforms.
Again, tech doesn’t FORCE anything, people choose to fuck customers (and workers) and sometimes happen to use tech as an excuse. You don’t need any tech to raise prices or lower wages, and those are some of the biggest problem we have. Whether I use an app or coins to pay for my parking is not the issue.
In a world with lobbyists, monopolies, big corporations donating billions to politicians, a QR code is nowhere near the top of the problem list.
And consumers are quite rational, the go consistently for the cheapest option that fulfills their need. You see it in online services, electronics, flights, etc.
Surely you can have your cake and eat it too, right?
If consumers were rational Tesla stock wouldn’t be where it is, meme coins wouldn’t exist, nft craze wouldn’t have happened (btw all examples of tech spending money to trick dumb people). Consumers routinely DO NOT go for the cheapest possible option but frequently get tricked by stupid gimmicks and smoke and mirrors. For example - Colgate started wrapping their toothpaste boxes in a clear plastic that sparkles under grocery store lights. Despite raising prices, introducing wasteful plastic, and increased packaging costs they increased market share and profits - that’s not rational. You seem to have been sold on libertarian delusions.
I never mentioned salaries and I very distinctly did mention that majority of the people in the world live in smaller communities with limited choices. If a tech overlord buys out their businesses (e.g buying all local newspaper and replacing them with mostly ai slop and agenda articles) there are not many alternatives. Insisting that because you have some choice in some matters it means everyone does is naive … and also another example of an irrational consumer lol
This is the problem with capitalism. What a sick world view.
The solution is… more monopolies? Please enlighten me.
How was that your takeaway from this thread
I agree. Tech is like fire, handle it responsibly.
Tech =/= megacorps
That’s like saying food doesn’t make the world better where you mean food industry megacorps producing hunger & poverty.
I dont know… This Linux thing is pretty great, IMO.
I get their point, but it feels like it’s more about tech being abused by large corporations, trying to squeeze another cent out of you.
I feel like that’s the entire point of the article. These technological “solutions” are being forced on us more and more and they are often I’ll conceived. Like QR ordering only systems.
As someone who grew up before the negative effects of computer/internet technology became apparent, and who was excited and impatient for it to develop, I agree with the points made in the article. It didn’t have to be this way; in a different kind of society it could have been a boon to everyone. But in our society all the benefits of good things are appropriated by the powerful so they can more readily exploit the less powerful for profit.
So many wonderful possible benefits that might have come from these technological advancements, to help people lead better lives, to address many of society’s issues (hunger, climate change, disabilities, education, etc) simply never happened, because in our society money must be invested to develop them, so only things that would make more profits for the greedy were able to be developed. Yes, some things did get funded by governments or foundations, but they’re only a drop in the bucket to what could be done.
It didn’t have to be this way; in a different kind of society it could have been a boon to everyone.
Please continue to espouse this viewpoint even under serious argument from those opposing it. Technology isn’t inevitably shit. There are other types of software we can write, and other types of technology we can develop that isn’t the result of some sweaty CTO hovering over our shoulders demanding that we make the world shittier for the sake of the shareholders.
We have to imagine the worlds we could’ve created through better choices. We have to imagine that we can change the course of things.
Literally just one billionaire could end world hunger. It’s such an easy way to go to history forever as a good guy. But they all become corrupt in the soul as soon as they have more than they can use. It’s a systematic problem and the problem is the demonic capitalist entities known as the megacorps
Well said.
Thanks Adam Smith…
I’m tired of pretending companies are making the world better.
See:
The corporation
The new corporation
My phone struggled to load the site to order a single cold brew, pop-ups to install the custom App kept obscuring the options, and I had to register with my phone number, email address, and first and last name to buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Then walk out. Don’t reward the bullshit with your money. The coffee shop ain’t gonna give a shit if you keep buying coffee just to go home and complain on your blog.
Came here to say this. I will never be compelled to install an app on my phone by an eatery the first time I go there. That is severely hostile design. Don’t willingly inconvenience yourself just to freely provide them your tracking info to sell.
Or… ask the staff for a menu, order with them, respectfully let them know how you feel about the qr/app thing (unlikely it was their decision to implement but they can pass on the complaint), and if they’re unwilling to take your order (which is hopefully unlikely at this point) feel free to make a little stink (if you feel inclined) and walk out. Still ok to complain on your blog about being spammed with the app but I’d rather try the obvious options first rather than expect the owners to heuristically discover via non-returning customers that we really don’t want the app.
That is, if the coffee/food/service is good, otherwise yea fuck em
Boy do I have a story for you.
I tried to order a quesadilla from chipotle. An online exclusive. Turns out online ordering for the location nearest me was broken so I went in and explained that I was unable to order it, and I asked if I can just get one anyway. They flat out said no.
They refused to sell me a cheese quesadilla simply because it wasn’t ordered through their app/site which was broken. I just left and got food somewhere else.
I’ve been boycotting chipotle ever since.
That’s assuming the employees give enough of a shit to pass the feedback on to the owners, and that the owners give enough of a shit to listen.
Yeah, it’s better if you make it known why you’re not giving them your business, but if it doesn’t appreciably impact their revenue then most owners won’t care either way.
“In some parts of the city, you can’t even park your car anymore without downloading an app.”
Omg, this. I left my phone at home by accident and quickly found out that I could not pay a meter on the area I went to … You had to download an app to pay or use you phone to register a phone number and manually enter a plate and credit card.
No phone…meant no parking.
Good luck too if your phone happens to run out of battery.
Yep, technofeudalism is here.
Yeah but parking has always been bad.
You had to carry change. Meters were always out of order or would just eat your change without issuing a ticket, and the people checking never gave a shit and would give you a fine anyway.
My only complaint is the app, everyone should offer a website or an app, but if you’re going to park there a few times an app does make sense.
Neither a phone nor website would work if your phone battery is flat. The meter should at least have a way for someone to park their car if they don’t have a functioning phone, or internet access, even before the hellscape of needing a separate app for everything.
You’re in a car. There’s probably a charging port there. Sucks if you don’t have a phone, but it sucked before when you didn’t have change.
Parking has always been a privilege not a right, and if you’re not prepared you’re going to get a ticket.
I get that it’s annoying but if my phone broke and I suddenly had to pay for parking with coins, I don’t know what I’d do either. Everything is cashless now, where would I get coins from?
Woo! Let’s make this artificial biome that much more inhospitable for the very creatures that build and live in it!
We must imagine Sisyphus fucking miserable! Ants in an anthill made of broken glass and depleted lion batteries!
also you can walk into basically any bank and ask for a roll of quaters
And if you wear a mask it even free!
Yet more benefits to cycling then. Just lock it to any reasonably sturdy object.
deleted by creator
Times change. I see nothing wrong with it. Same as you used to be able to park without paying, then you started to pay, and now it’s moving from those machines to phone apps. And in the future there may be other form of pay, or maybe parking is directly forbidden o who knows what but there will be a change, for sure. Because things change.
It’s just nostalgia working. Things change. You were more capable of dealing with change at a younger age and that’s why you see the older the people get the more they complain about everything.
But is just a change, like many other that came before that.
I understand the complaint, but the big picture of tech has a ton of upside.
Tech itself is not the issue. How it’s applied is the issue.
Once tech takes hold, there is massive pressure to monetize the asset.
That’s where this complaint lives. Amazing advance becomes ubiquitous, then two things inevitably occur. Companies are formed that apply the technology on unnecessary and unpopular ways (parking app is a perfect example) or the pressure to make more more MORE MONEY triggers the enshittification spiral, where “wow, you can print wirelessly now!?” becomes “my printer won’t take any cartridges but brand name, and I have to watch an unskippable 30-second ad every time I print now??!!!”
It follows that as tech saturates our lives, the inevitability of enshittification will also saturate our lives.
The year is 2044, you don’t feel old but the ticker is starting to skip several beats a day. Your doctor is forced to use the product at his disposal to help you, which is the PaceXMaker produced by the Tesla-Cola conglomerate. The device is a true miracle of modern science. The size of a fingernail, it pulses electricity into your heart in carefully measured bursts to support proper function of all valves, and ensures that any plaque is dissolved harmlessly away. Your iEye tracks the device status, and alerts you when it starts to run low on fuel, a proprietary enzyme designed by Tesla-Cola. When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you. Hook up the Tesla Cola Zero-Venous BeautyRest to your ArmDock (patent pending) for up to five hours of relaxing enzyme replenishment. You can remove the arm dock after you confirm six ad-watch minute credits on your iEye.
Tesla-Cola: We Got You
…always with the verification cans.
I don’t agree. Technology in itself is not helpful nor harmful. It’s a tool like a hammer or a knife or a pen and a block of paper.
I agree if one says that technology makes it easier to do harm.:) People and their motives and actions are the same as always, since the stone age and ago.
Tech speeds things up. If you want to do good, it’ll help you do it faster. If you want to do evil, it’ll help you do it faster.
in my opinion, at this point of history, FAST is inherently detrimental. Only those with privilege and resources are able to adapt to rapid changes and reap their benefits, while the rest are left behind.
Which changes rules, but not the resulting balance or lack thereof.
Yep.
I think when most people say something like “technology is making the world worse” they mean the technology as it actually exists and as it is actually developing, not the abstract sense of possible futures that technology could feasibly deliver.
That is clearly what the author of the piece meant.
If the main focus of people who develop most technology is getting people more addicted to their devices so they are easier to exploit then technology sucks. If the main focus is to generate immoral levels of waste to scam venture capitalists and idiots on the internet then technology sucks. If the main focus is to use technology to monetize every aspect of someone’s existence, then I think it is fair to say that technology, at this point in history, sucks.
Saying “technology is neutral” is not super insightful if, in the present moment, the trend in technological development and its central applications are mostly evil.
Saying “technology is neutral” is worse than unhelpful if, in the present moment, the people who want to use technology to harm others are also using that cliche to justify their antisocial behavior.
When the discussion is about whether technology + an unregulated human society is likely to end badly, then there is not much to discuss.
There are real life test series. In the 80s many countries put rules into place which forced the industry to filter/ treat their emissions. Technology gooood.
Some countries restrict their people’s access to personal fire arms more than others. Statistics show that shootings are more likely, when everybody has a gun. Technology baaad.
In my opinion it is mostly about the common rules a society agrees on. Technology amplifies both ways and needs to be moderated when it is misused.
Fentanyl is a technology.
I think the real problem is the drive to monetize so much of the technology. For instance, product owners continually try to increase engagement in their stupid apps and continually move things around and add new widgets that people don’t want, or use, all while continuing to degrade the experience of the features that they do use.
It goes both ways: look at how much Lemmy usage has grown, and Lemmy’s existence is due to technology. We can protest with our dollars and time by leaving such products behind. Greed is independent of tech itself.
Oh for sure…and I’m here after slashdot stopped listening to users, then digg, then Reddit …
Right, so the buck stops here with FOSS, finally!
… 🤞
That would be nice! I did get 16 years out of Reddit at least before giving up…
Good God you people are deep in the sauce. Just straight up ignoring the fact that tech enabled propaganda to be spammed in people’s faces 24/7. It’s so obviously a net drag on society at this point. But don’t dare take away my dopamine rush.
Technology is not neutral, and philosophers have known this since the middle of the 20th century. See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.
Technology makes us relate to the world and others in a distorted way. Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text… A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do. Compare this then to politics, earth, society, where technology have the same effect
I didn’t find the article particularly insightful but I don’t like your way of thinking about tech. Technology and society make each other together. Obviously, technology choices like mass transit vs cars shape our lives in ways that the pens example doesn’t help us explain. Similarly, society shapes the way that we make technology. Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint. The leftover space (i.e. the vast majority) is the process through which we embed social values into the technology. To return to the example of mass transit vs cars, these obviously have different embedded values within them, which then go on to shape the world that we make around them.
This way of thinking helps explain why computer technology specifically is so awful: Computers are shockingly general purpose in a way that has no parallel in physical products. This means that the underconstraining is more pronounced, so social values have an even more outsized say in how they get made. This is why every other software product is just the pure manifestation of capitalism in a way that a robotic arm could never be.
edit to add that this argument is adapted from Andrew Feenberg’s “Transforming Technology”
I like the way you argument but I’m not able to grasp what you try to say entirely. English isn’t my native language, this may play into it.
Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint.
I. e this sentence.:) Would you rephrase it and give an additional example?
I kind of get the mass transit vs. cars example. Although I think both options have their advantages and disadvantages. It becomes very apparent to me when… Lets say, when you give everyone a car and send them all together into rush hour and transform our cities into something well suited for cars but not so much for people. But that doesn’t make the wheel or the engine evil in itself.
Also: The society and and it’s values affects technology which in turn affects the environment the society lives in. Yes, I get that when I think i.e. about the industrialisation in the 19th century.
I struggle with the idea that a tool (like a computer) is bad because is too general purpose. Society hence the people and their values define how the tool is used. Would you elaborate on that? I’d like to understand the idea.
No problem!
Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint.
Example: Let’s say that there’s a factory, and the factory has a machine that makes whatever. The machine takes 2 people to operate. The thing needs to get made, so that limits the number of possible designs, but there are still many open questions like, for example, should the workers face each other or face away from each other? The boss might make them face away from each other, that way they don’t chat and get distracted. If the workers get to choose, they’d prefer to face each other to make the work more pleasant. In this way, the values of society are embedded in the design of the machine itself.
I struggle with the idea that a tool (like a computer) is bad because is too general purpose. Society hence the people and their values define how the tool is used. Would you elaborate on that? I’d like to understand the idea.
I love computers! It’s not that they’re bad, but that, because they’re so general purpose, more cultural values get embedded. Like in the example above, there are decisions that aren’t determined by the goals of what you’re trying to accomplish, but because computers are so much more open ended than physical robots, there are more decisions like that, and you have even more leeway in how they’re decided.
I agree with you that good/evil is not a productive way to think about it, just like I don’t think neutrality is right either. Instead, I think that our technology contains within it a reflection of who got to make those many design decisions, like which direction should the workers sit. These decisions accumulate. I personally think that capitalism sucks, so technology under capitalism, after a few hundred years, also sucks, since that technology contains within it hundreds of years of capitalist decision-making.
factory example
Thanks. I think I get it now. Besides physical constraints (availability of resources, natural laws and the knowledge of them), society’s inherent values and rules (like work safety, minimum wage, worth attributed to a group of people/ the environment / animals) affect the way things are done.
If work force is cheap and abundantly available and the workers’ health or wellbeing isn’t considered as too relevant the resulting solution to achieve something is very different from one with different preconditions.
computers … because they’re so general purpose, more cultural values get embedded. Like in the example above, there are decisions that aren’t determined by the goals of what you’re trying to accomplish, but because computers are so much more open ended than physical robots, there are more decisions like that, and you have even more leeway in how they’re decided.
The moral/ social/ economic decisions which are made are affected by the opportunities which a technology has to offer? OK, yes.
The versatility of computer technology makes it a tech which can be used in many harmful ways. The potential for harm is bigger than let’s say with the invention of the wheel or the plow but not as big as with nuclear fission.Responsibility for the usage of a technology and finding common rules for its usage and enforcing them… hmm.
Technology and what we do with it can’t be viewed as independent aspects?
I think I basically agree with you and the author here. People applying technology have a responsibility to apply it in ways that are constructive, not harmful. Technology is a force multiplier, in that it makes it easy to achieve goals, in a value neutral sense.
But way too many people are applying technology in evil ways, extracting value instead of creating it, making things worse rather than better. It’s an epidemic. Tech can make things better, and theoretically it should, but lately, it’s hard to say it has, on the net.
I think a clear distinction to make might be:
“Tech” as used in this sense is the industrial complex around mobile and web technologies dominated by a few players who might just be evil.
“Technology” is, of course, everything you mentioned and more. A rock that fits nicely in your hand becomes technology when used to crack a coconut.
It’s a weird linguistic murkiness, isn’t it?
The field of language, the meaning of words in different contexts… Communication in general, they wrote books over books about it…
Yes. Murky. :)
the article is talking about both, or perhaps conflates the two. QR code menus.
Or like the death ray!
(Futurama reference)
The original use of what we now think of as a “spoon” originally had nothing to do with food.
1000 years ago they would chain slaves neck to neck. They’d use the spoon to carve out everybodies eyes except the first guy in the line. Slaves don’t need to see. They just need to carry heavy shit. The first slave can see. The rest just need to go where their neck drags them.
I say all this to agree with you. Technology isn’t the source of corruption and evil. It is just a tool. Just like a spoon. I use my spoon to eat cereal. Others use the spoon to carve out peoples eyes. The spoon is not evil. The spoon is a tool.
This feels super duper made up
Go yell at the history channel, circa 1996.
So yeah. Super duper made up.
Never heard of this spoon invention story. I have doubts.:) I’m almost certain that eyes have been carved out by means of spoon. War, civil unrest and suppression of weaker minorities show that we have it in us.
Atomic bombs are also tools with no moral compass of their own.
I’m tired of people seeing everything as binary good or bad. We have more than two brain cells, and life isn’t a fucking meme.
Tech is a tool. It can be benefitting the oligarchs and restrictive, or benefitting society and open source.
Yep, I also been growing older and I have nostalgia for old times. But I’m well aware that grass is only greener on my memory, as it has always been.
Yes and no. It’s objectively true that things like streaming services, food delivery, and online communications got worse not better over time. It’s not true for all things but there are definitely things that simply got worse for profit
That’s not tech. That’s company policies.
Streaming services, as a tech has evolved and it’s a better technology that it was before. New encoding formats allow for transfer of more data over less bandwidth for instance.
Online communications, as in forums as such, as also evolved with new and better ways of posting, and better security (I remember when websites just stored your password in plain text).
What people complain about are mostly company policies, not technology. Netflix charging more for less content, or Reddit banning third party apps are not tech. Those things are not developed. They are just a company decision.
And company decisions are as bad as always. People also got screw by companies in the 90s. People who just notice more now is because now they are older.
Okay counter example, all social media with its black box rightwing feeding rage bait algorithms instead of message boards. It’s all tech, what companies that drive these changes do affects us all in what we can and cannot use. Yes there has been technological progress that’s overall good, but there are many things that are a negative on society. Nobody is blaming the concept of technology… that’s just naive. Obviously the qualm is with the implementation and access to said tech which is necessarily gated and groomed by big corps.
Some more examples:
- unsafe touch screens instead of buttons in cars
- smart appliances you can’t avoid unless you buy used
- forced use of QR codes (stupid levels of unsafe) for payment in what used to be cash businesses
I’m still a big fan of great tech advancement and yes the problem is with companies. Or more precisely, with how much influence these companies have on our choice and access to technologies
For the past 20 years, tech has promised to make things more efficient while making almost everything more complicated and less meaningful. Innovation, for innovation’s sake, has eroded our craftsmanship, relationships, and ability to think critically.
I feel this in my bones.
They’re conflating tech with tech bros.
Tech can and does make lots of things that make our lives longer and better. Just not most of the consumer level shit that is constantly peddled by snake oil sellers. That tech is not meant to make your lives easier, it’s meant to get more money out of you without giving it up to the little people at service level.
The problem isn’t the tech, it’s the people who are controlling the tech.
The problem isn’t the tech, it’s the people who are controlling the tech.
The tech is literally made by those by people. The tech itself is in fact the problem. You will never have a version of something like social media that’s actually healthy. One way or the other someone with power will get their hands on it and abuse it.
For many things I completely agree.
That said, we just had our second kid, and neither set of grandparents live locally. That we can video chat with our family — for free, essentially! — is astonishing. And it’s not a big deal, not something we plan, just, “hey let’s say hi to Gramma and Gramps!”
When I was a kid, videoconferencing was exclusive to seriously high end offices. And when we wanted to make a long distance phone call, we’d sometimes plan it in advance and buy prepaid minutes (this was on a landline, mid 90s maybe). Now my mom can just chat with her friend “across the pond” whenever she wants, from the comfort of her couch, and for zero incremental cost.
I think technology that “feels like tech” is oftentimes a time sink and a waste. But the tech we take for granted? There’s some pretty amazing stuff there.
for free, essentially!
Say that to the Facebook Portal: a fantastic product five years ago that is now having its features gutted because Meta couldn’t figure out how to make money off of it.
Tech tends to goes through stages:
A need or idea is created. Usually by a small independent entity.
A proof of concept is developed and starts to gain ground.
Investors pour money into the concept to an extreme degree. Tech grows in functionality, matures and develops into a useful tool.
The the investors demand a return on the investment and the money dries up.
Company either goes bankrupt or their product goes to shit.
There’s magic and then there’s complexity in tech (at least this is how I think about it).
Video calling, pure magic, simple to use with major benefits.
Complex business management software that requires a degree to use? Complexity almost for complexity’s sake to lock an organisation into a support contract.
Web stores? Usually magic, especially with refined payment processing and smooth ordering. Can verge into over complex coughAmazoncough.
Internal network administration (Active Directory) and cloud tech, often complexity for complexity’s sake again.
I feel this every time I just want to see a restaurant’s menu and instead I have to pretend I’m making an online order.
Yeah, just print it and stick it on the table. Or have a tablet or something at the table if it changes frequently.
Don’t make me use my phone to look up your menu, that’s just tacky.
Tech has made things more efficient - the rewards of such are simply being funneled from the average person to the wealthy.
Maybe some tech has increased efficiency (although, when it does that increase is more often than not temporary and short lived), but there is even more “tech” that swarms that space rent seeking any time, money, or other resource saved by that increased efficiency. After the efficiencies degrade, the tech-as-a-scam persists and you end up with less efficient systems than you started with.
Yeah, just watch what AI does. The generation after Gen Alpha is going to be unable to imagine the concept of being self sustaining, and problem solving without machines. The same way Gen Z today can’t imagine the concept of just NOT having internet. Or any internet connected devices.
I like playing video games…
The dissatisfaction is in regards to the imperative that you use all forms of tech in all aspects of your life. It is with the fact that all tech is designed around making money, not improving life. If your video games were designed around bringing joy and entertainment, then you would probably like them even more, and get more benefit from them. Instead there are loot boxes and gambling in nearly all large games.
Luckily some games are still made for fun. And some gambling games were fun before they were monetized, and still are in spite of it.
