I'm Tired of Pretending Tech is Making the World Better
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech =/= megacorps
That's like saying food doesn't make the world better where you mean food industry megacorps producing hunger & poverty.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech definitely is. Gate-keeping, stupid pricing, etc. done by few corporations and individual isn't.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Worst thing to happen to tech is ads.
-
Worst thing to happen to tech is ads.
People weren't willing to pay with money. Usually every tech product with ads has an "insert coin to remove" option. If you don't insert coin, advertisers will.
-
also you can walk into basically any bank and ask for a roll of quaters
And if you wear a mask it even free!
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
The internet peaked in utility around 2004. Most, if not all, developments since then have only made things worse
I was thinking about this the other day, while loading music onto my modded iPod. If I could go back in time and stick a pin in tech growth, it would be 2006, before the iPhone came along. Don't get me wrong, I think the explosion in smartphones that came after the first iPhone is broadly good and has the ability to be democratising. But that's not really what shook out.
The world in 2006 had digital cameras and small, portable music players. We had SMS for easily staying in touch with each other, and we did have smartphones - just not as smart as they are now. From a communication perspective, we mostly had what we needed. Hell, by 2006 3G connections were pretty universal, so we could do video calling if we had a phone that supported it. Having a bunch of devices that all did specific things meant that we spread our reliance around a number of companies. Now, with our camera, MP3 player, computer, and communication device all being controlled by one company, if that company turns to shit we have to jump to a less shitty firm, but we have to abandon all of the conveniences to which we've grown accustomed.
As someone who recently jumped from 15 years of iOS to GrapheneOS, this last one is particularly painful.
And sure, everything has gotten a lot faster since then, but there's a part of me that kind of enjoys the inconvenience of slower, finicky hardware that sometimes needs a nudge in the right direction.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I am once again linking the sick sad history of computer-aided collaboration:
https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-modern-computer-look-and-feel/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
-
I'm tired of the people who are the ones that have taken tech to the direction it has gone in for a long while now. Making up problems that weren't ever there before that suddenly now need a stupid app or a feature to fix but adds in its own problems.
I'm tired of big tech deciding when we should upgrade because they deliberately create things that break, degrade and becomes obsolete far shorter than whatever should have.
I'm tired of unnecessary things like added fees for 'convenience'. I'm tired of things like fucking google flipping back accounts on me when I need to see a number to another account.
So much shit is that I'm tired about with tech. Tech is supposed to be exciting, easier, friendlier. Now it's just manipulated into a problem of its own, simply because of those who are behind it.
I'm tired of big tech deciding when we should upgrade because they deliberately create things that break, degrade and becomes obsolete far shorter than whatever should have.
I think about Apple quite a lot in this regard. Not because of planned obsolescence or anything so nefarious, but because they genuinely make some of the best consumer hardware you can buy, and because it's so good it costs a decent wedge. Then, five years later, when that good hardware is still as good as the day you bought it, they quietly drop OS support for it because they need you to buy another one.
And most people will smile and thank them for the trade-in discount they'll get to help them spend more money, while that older, still perfectly usable hardware is shipped off to a massive shredder to take it off the used market.
I use Macs, I understand this process very well. But I've also done my fair share of putting OCLP on older hardware in order to wring a few more years out of it, and of putting Linux on even older Macs because they still work perfectly well. I mean, I have a 2011 MacBook Pro that's running Linux Mint so well that you wouldn't have any idea that it's a 14 year old laptop.
The second best thing Apple are good at is convincing their customers that the equipment they own is old and knackered. And that's kinda sad.
-
People weren't willing to pay with money. Usually every tech product with ads has an "insert coin to remove" option. If you don't insert coin, advertisers will.
Paying for the product and paying to not be inconvenienced by ads have become separate things. The first is standard business, the second is extortion.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm tired of pretending companies are making the world better.
See:
The corporation
The new corporation
-
tbf, the past few years have felt like decades
This past month has felt like two years.
-
Tech could make our life easier, if only the fruits of increased efficiency would go towards us all instead of the few rich people at the top.
If only the goal of the tech firms was to make the world better while making enough money to achieve this, rather than their goal being to make as much shareholder value as possible while ekeing out improvements on a schedule that fits their need to maximise profits.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Why don't you live in a cave then & why are you even posting this ?
Be the change you want to see bro/sis ? -
Paying for the product and paying to not be inconvenienced by ads have become separate things. The first is standard business, the second is extortion.
Paying 80 for a product that is worth 100 and have ads is standard practice nowadays, to the point that not doing this puts you in competitive disadvantage. You are than asked to pay the remaining 20 or put up with ads.
You see this in every lemmy discussion about smart TVs. People complain that TVs have ads and there's always someone that suggest getting a "dumb" TV but complain that they are more expensive. It's almost like ads subsidize the purchase price or something...
-
Honestly? Cool that you are asking, but I just want a coffee, not a conversation.
Yes, I'm German, how could you tell?
I feel the same. Find it annoying when in the US the waitress introduces herself, asks where I'm form, etc. Do you work for a diner or the CIA? Just bring me a steak with fries, medium rare, please and thank you.
-
Paying 80 for a product that is worth 100 and have ads is standard practice nowadays, to the point that not doing this puts you in competitive disadvantage. You are than asked to pay the remaining 20 or put up with ads.
You see this in every lemmy discussion about smart TVs. People complain that TVs have ads and there's always someone that suggest getting a "dumb" TV but complain that they are more expensive. It's almost like ads subsidize the purchase price or something...
I disagree, I think the removal of ads is often painted as a benefit that had inherent value. Look at YouTube premium or Prime video. Both haven't actually improved their offering, just made it worse by introducing ads and insisting users that don't want to see ads have to pay for the privilege of not being advertised to.
This means the total price adds up to higher than 100% of the product value, because it's a 'premium' version that comes without advertisement inconvenience.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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 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.
