I'm sorry if using the word "tech" made what I wrote unclear. What I mean is that everything in technology is political.
From R&D to applications to decisions on what should or should not be allowed. All our tools, from the components to the hardware to the software and to the interactions we have with all that, is decided and informed by politics.
We are just cogs in a system that goes way beyond what we type on our keyboards.
Now, what should be is a different story. And here again I'm not quite sure we mean the same thing. Politics, as the system that decides where society goes will always inform technology and it's up to us, as citizens, not as tech cogs, to push and pull in the direction that brings the best to the most. Which is sadly not happening at the moment, except, as far as software development is concerned, in the Free Software movement.
You have a point about the OSS movement. The place where we may have philosophical differences is technology's role in society. My personal opinion is that technology is only a tool, and that there is a tendency to conflate the tool with the user's actions. Individuals make choices, and using technology in an attempt to manipulate is what I consider the "dark side" of tech.
What's the difference between censoring someone's views and directly forcing people to behave a certain way?
As a thought experiment, if there were a technology that could directly control someone's mind, would it be morally different to do that in comparison with manipulating them using the tools we currently have?
Simply put, I don't think any radical view points should either corrupt software or be prevented from using it, and if you're stating the utilitarian fact that we must accept that extremists will try, then I agree with you and think it is a civic duty to keep software open and available to everyone.
I think it is important to not confuse open-source which is a development model, and free software, which is a political movement.
Also, I am not discussing here philosophical differences on the end user side. I am talking about deliberate funding/investment choices for research/infrastructure/services that shape the potential choices that we end up having, by creating what is possible and what is not.
You are correct in saying that technology is a tool, but it is a tool not for us, but for the actors that implement the tools. What we are allowed to do thanks to the tool is merely a side effect of what it was designed to accomplish.
An easy example: nuclear technology is a tool. It is a tools that shapes the power relations in the state apparatus and in the world energy and military market, and only way down the road, when the road is not a road any more but rather an unpaved back-alley, is is a tool that we use to such and such ends in the form of electricity, but really, considering what individuals do with that electricity, we can just as well consider that a barely noticeable side effect of the original tool's application, which is shaping power relations.
Nuclear power is s great example! What happened when physical laws were used to political means? We invented a bomb. What happened when the same scientists just did their job to do their part in society regardless of politics? We got a solution to fill every home in the world with electricity with very few polluting side effects (there are ways to avoid almost all risks with nuclear power, but this isn't the place). What happened when we made it political again? We kept burning coal for 30 years and stopped the progress of nuclear power because of fear mongering.
But the collective "we" that you use as a rhetorical tool is only that, a rhetorical tool.
No, I had a specific "we" in mind. I'm not trying to drive you to action, but if I were it would be the rhetorical we.
Does a government and the laws it makes not imply a we that makes an follows those rules?
I'd argue that there is never not a "we" unless you're so far on the fringes of society that you do not rely on the set of commonalities the rest do.
No, it doesn't because there are conflicting interests that create groups, or classes and so unless you are a high level government agent involved in energy policies, or in an executive position in an energy company, etc. calling yourself a "we" in that context is just rhetorical.
Good, so you admit it's pointless to be political because there is no need to associate interests we have as individuals with interests of the whole? Because your argument seems to be that I'm conflating my decisions with the high level government's decisions?
Given that, the only solution is to write broken software or apolitical software, as you are arguing that there is no "we" in our democratic beyond action/event level input from our votes. This means that simply being an apolitical cog in the wheel of society with no societal conscious is the only valuabe position one can aspire to?
On the other end, if your argument is that I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I shouldn't be talking about nuclear energy, then I would argue that no occupation knows what's best for all of society in relation to their field and that their motives should generally be considered antithetical to society as a whole as they, when acting in a group, will try to gain the largest share of resources possible for their group.
Basically: everything looks like a nail when you are a hammer.
Here is a summary of my points:
• Everything in tech is political
• There is no global "we" that makes decisions
Then you can identify groups and further their interests by, for ex. unionizing in tech/strengthening tech consumer groups/ etc.
Okay, not trying to beat a dead horse, but what is you reasoning that everything in tech is political? Do you think that, say carpentry, is always political or is it some unique trait in tech?
Do you mean the fact that sharing speech is political? Freedom of speech is a basic human right and by definition not political, even if someone politicizes it.
I agree there is no collective we beyond the we that is self imposed. By participating in society you impose some variant of "we" on yourself and the group you choose as your "we" in a specific context is the one that best suits that context. Any other explanation would be mentueua.
I answered your first question in my first reply to your comments. Please see above.
Regarding freedom of speech, it is defined as a basic human right because of a massive amount of political work in the 17th and 18th century. Before that it was not even on the radar.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.