This is a pretty good article. Something I try to stress to my students. Technology is a major driver of culture and society, and understanding that complexity of relationships is important. It’s not developed in an isolated bubble, nor is any technology neutral or value-free.
I like that the article highlights community engagement. That is so very true. Otherwise some good-intended deployment can quickly become technological colonialism when the users might not be able to do system upkeep or it solves the wrong problem
Love how it highlights that big tech (much to capitalism’s fault, TBH) can only drive innovation if the tech has a moat around it, if no one else can, or would, copy it and deploy it at a lower cost.
Which is… the argument that people use to defend capitalism? That capitalism drives innovation and makes it accessible to everyone at the lowest possible price.
I like the frugal tech idea as much as I like degrowth.
That’s basically saying that “big tech” (as we know it today) and competition-friendly capitalism just cannot coexist. Which I’m inclined to agree with.
Frugal tech idea and degrowth are more capitalist than a handful of monopolies owning you in every orifice and billing you for it.
If by “capitalism” we don’t mean paleo-industrialism of XIX-century aristocrats with monocles and child labor. If we do mean the “free market with protections for property, rights, safety and anti-monopoly regulations yadda-yadda” moderate-normal-classical model.
Too bad this doesn’t really mention the Fediverse or open-source software. Seems a next logical step
Just use open source software with open protocols.
We should have a GPL update that disallows using the software within closed sourced eco systems.“this software is only allowed to be run on open source operating systems” for example.
