There's only reason we must depend on an architecture that is financed by the entertainment and videogames industry escalating the power of the personal computer all the time whilst offering less of what the user actually needs.
The reason is that neoliberalism needs to keep building things more complex and unapproachable to protect their position, using the sacrosanct construct of "intellectual property" to defend it.
Modern software running on mainstream computing systems is insecure as fuck, wastes energy and resources, and works against the personal, social, and economic interests of most people.
It's about time we start to abandon these systems and their shackles, not just social media alone.
Eventually web browsers and mainstream PCs and mobile devices need to be seriously rethought as well.
And I don't mean just free software running on the same devices.
We need a serious rethinking of the whole modern computer ecosystem.
I would love to see a viable equivalent of, eg, the joint stock company.
Some kind of social-benefit cooperative?
Thing is, we've *had* many, many cooperatives and communes and service clubs and social-benefit orgs before, and a lot of them either crashed and burned from inner conflicts in the 1960s-70s (the back-to-the-landers) or slowly died or got eaten in the 1980s.
Do we understand why, and how to prevent those emergent forces (interior and exterior) from just doing it again?
When first the Internet and then the Free / Libre / Open Source movement hit in the mid and late 1990s, I thought 'great, this decentralised self-organising group stuff MUST be the way of the future, now we need an economic equivalent of this to make it fully self-sustaining'.
But we never quite got that economic equivalent.
It's probably time to pilot it, though.
I keep thinking of Dee Hock's 'Chaordic Commons' as a model, and yet, that org couldn't even sustain itself.
@natecull @bob We don't truly understand complex systems such as social systems unless we study them from a perspective of information theory and concurrent systems design.
So the short answer is no.
The long answer is we need multi-disciplinary approaches from social sciences, management, and systems engineering. I believe it's possible, but we're not there yet.
Are there people who are even looking at these kind of orgs, though?
I feel like there was sort of a rush of interest in the mid 00s, and then it just... faded away.
I don't wanna blame Obama but I do think the wave of left-liberal anger that brought Obama into office kinda crested out in 2008 point. Lot of people kinda went 'oh, okay, we got our guy in to the White House, now it's back to business as usual' and just folded up the whole community organising infrastructure.
1. Organic food as a niche luxury good (the only way the small farms could survive, but created a backlash to environmentalism as a 'self-indulgent toy of the rich')
2. 'Green capitalism' and 'sustainable development' which, other than batteries and windfarms, seems to have just enabled the current system rather than challenging it.
It's maybe better than zero, but... more 0.0000001 than 1?
Not that our group WERE hippies, in fact they saw them as the enemy, but there's a lot in common between 1970s hippie / New Age dropout groups and 1970s right Christian dropout groups. Both had a similar apocalyptic-utopian perspective on the world.
Let's just say that the M Night Shyamalan movie 'The Village' resonated VERY strongly with me. Been there, done that, got the psychic scars.
I really wanna recover the optimism that was in 2010s Occupy, 2010s Anti-Globalisation Movement, 1990s Open Source / Open Culture, 1970s/80s Punk, 1960s Counterculture.
Not the failure modes. But I'd love to access that inner conviction that there's a better way of building organisations and that we can find it.
There's so much fear and despair right now, as if 'tech and AI and the 1%' means the battle is already lost.
I want a bright vision to challenge that.
@natecull I think
there's a deeply ignorant and reactionary anti-tech vibe mostly in the US pseudo-left, because that kind of tech and the corporate fascist system is all they've ever known.
But thankfully that's not the whole world and not all people in the US think like that.
I'm used to live in uncertainty as most people around the world are, but it's understandable that people who were brought up with everything solved and a clear path before them will be anxious.
An anti-tech backlash is absurd self-harming primitivism. Human beings are technological and they must be if they want to survive. There is no choice.
The cathartic exercise would be better employed turning against the corporations and the neoliberal systems, instead of the people who are trying to build tools to break the shackles.
Anti-tech ignorance really gets to me, it's really, really profoundly irrational, absurd, and unhinged from reality.
@h @bob @natecull I think a lot of it has to do with tech being so intrinsically tied to capitalism and it can be really hard for people to break apart how they look at systems. It's esier for people to blame the things they can see and hold in their hands or touch then to blame this crazy global virus that is money > everything
@wakest I find it the most offensive and lazy, but at the same time oddly amusing from people who portray themselves as revolutionaries and radicals of some sort, in their anti-intellectual pseudo-radical reactionary fever doing nothing, and complaining that big daddy is not giving them nice things.
If I were Santa I wouldn't even give them a sack of coal to warm themselves.
I understand what you're saying. But I only partially agree.
I think you're possibly confusing some people's criticisms of SOME SPECIFIC technologies with a GENERAL criticism of ALL technology.
Two important things about technology - and this is an analysis that the 'green' movement gave the world - is that:
1. There are many technologIES, not just one 'technologY'.
2. No technologY is neutral. Any given technology has a SHAPE. It defines the social relations around it.
If a society invests heavily in, for instance, nuclear power (as opposed to wind and solar power), then - because the SHAPE of 'nuclear power' in its current incarnation is heavily centralised - it is ALSO investing heavily in centralisation, in a 'priestly class' of engineers, in massive public works and government subsidies and potentially in crime (because, eg in Japan, crime is deeply involved in nuclear power).
None of this is value-neutral.
On the other hand, if a society invests in solar power, then because solar is safe to deploy on a small scale and doesn't require thousand-year protection systems, it gives that society a very different shape. It pushes generation to the edge of the network, it incentivises creating small-scale metering systems, etc, etc.
So I think just complaining that 'the left is against technology' misses a lot about WHICH technologIES *specific* sectors of the left have critiques of.
@h I didn't ascribe *any* position to you. I was describing the Green position as I understand it.
This ethic is what underlies most of my approach to computing, for instance - why I prefer decentralised technologies to Cloud, for instance.
I don't understand why you hold the position that you do, but I'm trying to explain why I hold the position that I do.
But you seem to be clear that you don't want to talk about this, so I will also end this discussion here.
@h As I said, I don't understand what you're referring to. I don't believe I accused you of saying anything.
You seem to be very angry and defensive about something and I don't understand why.
I hope one day we might be able to understand each others' positions better, but that day doesn't seem to be today.
@h What I last said, I believe, was that I don't think it's a useful statement to say that people are 'anti-technology'.
This is because I don't believe that the generic word 'technology' really describes anything.
There are many technologIES. They are not interchangeable.
Many people have critiques of some technologies while being supportive of others.
@natecull And again, in case you didn't read the explanation I reiterated two times already, I wasn't referring to discerning people who understand these issues.
You have made it your focus to demonstrate that I said something I didn't say.
I didn't say all people who complain about "technology" are lazy or reactionary.
That's what you thought I said, but I never said that, if you care to read what I said.
You misread, and it gets tiring to have to explain this four and five times.
@h You said:
there's a deeply ignorant and reactionary anti-tech vibe mostly in the US pseudo-left>>
<<An anti-tech backlash is absurd self-harming primitivism.>>
<<Anti-tech ignorance really gets to me, it's really, really profoundly irrational, absurd, and unhinged from reality.>>
These were the statements I was responding to. They seem rather strong and harsh words. I would not use these terms myself.
Which specific 'tech' do you think there's a backlash to?
@natecull I am free to have my own thoughts and express them in any way I see appropriate as long as they don't harm anyone.
I didn't ask if anyone thought they were "strong" or "harsh".
I'm not interested in knowing that, or being the recipient of any sort of judgement for my political views.
Not sure what prompts you to offer such unsolicited evaluations and act like it's normal and I'm in the wrong somehow.
@natecull RE: "I would not use those terms myself".
I really didn't ask and I'm not interested if you think it's somehow better to not express ideas you have. Not interested, not welcome. This is not curiosity, this is moral judgement and I can do without it.
It's amazing that you see appropriate to express your moral judgement about the way I go about politics at the same time that you act like you wouldn't offer a judgement on other people's political views.
@natecull @h Personally, I think we need better systems for communication. Thats one of the things I'm working on with Agora, though it's not very far along as of yet. In particular, for this conversation, it seems like you two would really benefit from some way of transmitting more of the context and subtleties of what you say. Though of course, I'm not sure exactly how that would be accomplished. :/
@hattiecat I understand the fear, and I can parse all the rationalisations. But I don't accept acting upon fear against our own interest, effectively betting on our demise. Fear pre-empts thinking and makes us take the worst possible decisions. And worse, it exposes our buttons to people who know how to push them. Neoliberalism and propaganda work because we allow them to.