this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025

55 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37919 readers

79 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

Can We Build Tech That Is Not Oppressive? (substack.com)

submitted 3 days ago by thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/technology

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Excellent article by Afsaneh Rigot, author of the Design from the Margins methodology.

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes, it is possible. I think it will be something like this:

image source

where proprietary software will eventually be replaced by FOSS software. it just takes a while (Linux was released in 1991).

also, for social media, it's not so much about the software used, more about who controls it, and hosting plays a significant part in this. the question is, how do we put up an organization large enough to actually sustain that many users?

who pays for image/short video upload for a billion people? small instances on the fediverse already cost real money. feddit.org has 1000 users and reportedly already costs $1000/month to host, IIRC (which seems expensive, even to me, anyways), and catbox.moe, which is a donation-funded service also costs around $1000 (says so on their website). that number would obviously increase sharply if there were more users. So: who pays for it?

[–] kbal@fedia.io 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The "defeat big tech for justice and freedom" story is somewhat undermined by being published on substack.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Kind of like how releasing a book about climate change and how we have to dump capitalism in the future called "This Changes Everything" is undermined by using capitalism to sell the book.

Naomi Klein's writing is fantastic, but I will never let this one go. If it really changed everything she could have given it away as a PDF for free. No offense to Klein but she can afford to make such a sacrifice, she has been very successful in capitalism.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Free (as in freedom) software is the only way possible

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Libre software is important, and relates to the article insofar as it can help keep our own devices from spying on us, but software is merely an incidental detail within a larger problem. This is about abusive power structures, bad actors with too much influence, and profit taking precedence over human rights. No software license will solve it.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Further, decentralized software means almost fuck-all when all the hardware and pipes are owned by corporations and governments.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Even if it allows the user to modify the software and for example remove the unhealty aspects and then redistribute that to other people, as Free Software does?

Or do you mean more, some things will never be available as Free Software?

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Did you read the article? It's not really about spyware in the devices we "own". That's just a minor detail.

The problem being discussed comes from governments, laws, and capitalist motives being allowed to systematically exploit people who can easily be exploited. This takes place mostly outside of our devices, so although putting safer software on our devices is absolutely worthwhile, doing so cannot fix this problem.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You're right, I'm not really sure if I understand what the article is about. And how it translates to the title and us, the people.

I'm aware of oppressive regimes, weapon systems, surveillance, misinformation and manipulation taking place all around the world. And all of that becoming very efficient by technology, automation, algorithms, etc.

I don't think we can rely on the government or the companies, though. The goverment itself is the entitiy oppressing the people. And since the article is talking about the Trump situation... I mean all the billionaires and tech-bros were present at his inauguration ceremony, kissing his ass... I don't think we can rely on them or their employees, either...

So my thinking is, if it's technology that's going to solve this, or the citizens have any influence in the first place... as the title implies(?!), it has to be something like Free Software. Or at least something independent. Or is there anything else left?

But I'd agree, me using LibreOffice and encrypting my phone is not going to change if some trans people get arrested somewhere... I really don't understand what the article wants to tell me... We could overturn the government? Or stop sending weapons or similar tech to certain countries... But that's all political. None of that is really related to technology in the sense that the answer lies within technology...

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You’re right, I’m not really sure if I understand what the article is about. And how it translates to the title and us, the people.

Unfortunately, the headline is misleading. It's possible that the author chose it because gathering an audience by criticising "tech" is easy. It's also possible that she misunderstands the root of the issues she discusses. shrug

The only way I know of to solve the problem is to reclaim our governments, and reform them. Historically, that has been done through democracy and through revolution. The former approach is getting harder, and the way things are going, might disappear if we let them go unchecked for too long.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 days ago

Thanks for explaining. I get that. Seems we're moving away from democracy and freedom these days. That's hard to tackle. And there's a multitude of reasons and dynamics at play. I've also learned at school we usually have reforms or revolution available. Plus a few successful forms of nonviolent resistance. Or civil war, war and a restart, continued oppression... We'll see. I hope for the best. But in my opinion freedom is a constant fight, even in "free" countries, it's not granted automatically or indefinitely.

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 13 points 3 days ago

It’s not the tech, it’s the idiots behind it all.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Aparrently not