I'm Tired of Pretending Tech is Making the World Better
-
The internet peaked in utility around 2004. Most, if not all, developments since then have only made things worse
This era was before smartphones and always-online lifestyle. Being always online is a prerequisite to the attention economy.
So, yes, you're right that the best internet was back then. Back when we could leave it at home and go out into the world knowing everybody else had also left it at home.
Laptops are an obvious exception back then, but almost nobody took their laptop to the bar with them, or to a concert, or on a hike, or to the grocery store. And the trouble of pulling it out and trying to find WiFi meant that it wasn't easy enough to distract the majority.
-
I'm tired of people saying "technology" when they mean an application of a narrow subfield of technology. Quite often, they're not even talking about the tech at all, but instead the practices, leadership, or stock market performance of some corporation that happens to use or produce such a thing in the course of its business.
I do share the sentiment in this article, though. There's way too much stuff that we don't need being pushed upon us in order to extract wealth or power.
Agree. I think a lot of tech just isn't directly visible to consumers in most cases. I'm specifically thinking of medical applications, robotics, manufacturing, etc. Some more visible applications would be transit (maglev trains are in trials now) and a number of similar things. There's also biotech stuff about which I know little.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech is a tool. It can be benefitting the oligarchs and restrictive, or benefitting society and open source.
-
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 the. 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.
-
I think the real problem is the drive to monetize so much of the technology. For instance, product owners continually 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.
-
Agree. I think a lot of tech just isn't directly visible to consumers in most cases. I'm specifically thinking of medical applications, robotics, manufacturing, etc. Some more visible applications would be transit (maglev trains are in trials now) and a number of similar things. There's also biotech stuff about which I know little.
Water treatment, thermal insulation, textile fabrication, pharmaceuticals, air filtration, construction techniques, signal processing... the list goes on.
-
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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech doesn't make the world better. It's a tool that's been used to make rich people richer. Everyday people coming together for a greater cause makes the world better.
-
Go yell at the history channel, circa 1996.
So yeah. Super duper made up.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm tired of everybody wanting to see everything in binary good/bad terms.
-
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.
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?
-
Tech was ruined in the 90s
40 years later
Pick one. I'm 41 and was born in 1983.
My basic math skills have been terrible lately. I made a basic math error in a post the other day too. I was a strong student in math too
Is this cognitive decline? I’m not even 40
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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 article is talking about both, or perhaps conflates the two. QR code menus.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Scenario1:
"Um, hi. Can I just order here inside? Thanks. I'm really hating the apps now. For sure: one medium cold-brew, please. Yes, thanks, to go. Okay; tap here? Excellent. Oh. Put 'guppy' on the cup. Thanks! [pause] Oh, perfect. Hey, thanks again for letting me skip the app. Those are so frustrating! I'm really starting to avoid any place that uses them, and I'm so grateful I can still come in. Have a great day!"
Scenario2:
"Um, hi. Can I just order here? No? Just the app? That's too bad: I'm really getting frustrated with the app and I'm starting to avoid places that need them. Nope, that's all I needed, sorry. Thanks anyway, and have a great day!"
I like this idea because
- you're affirming the target behaviour
- you're getting a coffee and going
- you're being chipper so they don't feed off your grumpy face
- you're providing feedback without being too much 'that guy', I hope, to the serving staff.
In all things, you don't wanna be That Guy, because you know servers don't need that shit. But, while the odds are slim of feedback getting up the chain of command, you're being clear (and probably more concise) as to how to get more of your business in case the feedback DOES go up.
-
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.
Or like the death ray!
(Futurama reference)
-
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.
