TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Computers are an oppressive technology

155 pointsby hlandaualmost 3 years ago

47 comments

jmyeetalmost 3 years ago
Maybe computers are &quot;inherently oppressive&quot; but this is about the weakest and most inneffective argument for that I can imagine.<p>Let&#x27;s start with the &quot;ruthlessness&quot; of closing automated train doors in the tedious and pointless opening anecdote. Why is that bad? It&#x27;s bad if you have main character syndrome. But that one person missing their train might otherwise be a delay for hundreds of other people. It may have a knock-on impact to other train schedules.<p>Moving on to:<p>&gt; What is particularly interesting about The Terminator however is its immediate sequel, which pits two Terminators against one another.<p>It&#x27;s almost like these machines <i>reflect the will of their masters</i>. They&#x27;re tools. They&#x27;re no more &quot;ruthless&quot; than a hammer is. Is anyone arguing a hammer is &quot;ruthless&quot; because you can kill someone with one?<p>And then we take a weird turn into &quot;cryptoanarchism&quot;. I suspect crypto apologism (or just propaganda) was always the point. The author is somehow &quot;optimistic&quot; on the integrity of crypto systems while arguing machines are &quot;ruthless&quot;? Huh?
评论 #31714368 未加载
评论 #31713998 未加载
simonhalmost 3 years ago
A deeply and clearly thought out argument for why immutable blockchains and code as law are terrible ideas, yet the conclusion is that crypto-anarchist technologies are a net good. No explanation or exploration of why that might be the case, given the preceding damning indictment of the principles such technologies are based on. Very odd.<p>As to the broader issue, I agree with those here pointing out that indifference to human values is simply part of the nature of the universe. I wouldn&#x27;t say that nature is inherently hostile, it&#x27;s just indifferent. Survival of the fittest doesn&#x27;t care about the feelings of those eliminated form the gene pool. The rules we code into computer systems are no more or less intractable to human values than the laws of physics that make our bodies work. I think this means that decision making on human affairs should fall to humans, which means all such decision are ultimately political ones. Crypto-anarchism can&#x27;t do an end run around that.<p>Yet I think it&#x27;s wrong to think of human values as purely a system we choose to impose on brute nature from outside it. We are part of nature. Our systems of values, and traits such as love and empathy are evolved behaviours. They were selected for by those same implacable laws of nature and survival of the fittest. So I don&#x27;t see recognition of the implacability of nature as irretrievably nihilistic.
评论 #31714435 未加载
评论 #31713359 未加载
评论 #31714195 未加载
syzygyhackalmost 3 years ago
Various appeals to emotion and analogies that ultimately provide little to nothing of value. Maybe it is a good article about why we build human-operated escape hatches and failsafes in software and hardware. When was the last time you saw train doors <i>ruthlessly separate children from their parents</i>? Have you seen anyone lose a limb to that ruthless guillotine? No.<p>Machines do what they are programmed or built to do. They are only oppressive if created to be, whether that be out of malice or incompetence. Either way, any &quot;ruthlessness&quot; is human in origin.<p>The same goes for blockchain, by the way, which the author attempts to tar with this same brush of oppression. Bitcoin can&#x27;t be stopped? It has already been, when it proved necessary, and one day it likely will again. The &quot;inviolable and absolute integrity&quot; the author associates with blockchain is the same failure to acknowledge escape hatches as above. Cryptographic guarantees are not the foundation of a blockchain. Neither are the economic guarantees. The social layer is the foundation. In other words, the human element.
评论 #31713619 未加载
评论 #31713466 未加载
delusionalalmost 3 years ago
The author fails to define their use of the term &quot;oppression&quot;. Instead this work seems more focused on &quot;ruthlessness&quot;, which is also hinted at by the url. In that direction, it&#x27;s interesting.<p>I agree with the main points brought forward. Machine are indeed ruthless, and it&#x27;s certainly interesting to see how that ruthlessness is used to achieve more human ends. How machines are put in as an intermediary to shield the humans behind the curtain from accusations of inhumanity. I think it may mirror systems in general. Where any large enough organization of people takes on a mind of it&#x27;s own, and thereby becomes more ruthless and less human than any of the individuals making it function.<p>It may be an inherent property of systems, of meat or metal, that they oppress their surroundings to achieve their goals.<p>I first encountered this idea in John Gall&#x27;s excellent book _Systemantics_. It&#x27;s worth a read.
评论 #31713738 未加载
jl6almost 3 years ago
Right conclusion, wrong rationale.<p>The oppressiveness of computers comes from the fact that they can only exist through mass production techniques. Much of the cost-efficiency of computing comes from operating fabs at ever increasing economies of scale. Our current set of devices couldn’t exist without hundreds of millions of people coming together to work on the common purpose of producing those devices and their supply chains.<p>When you become dependent on mass industry, your own wants and needs become subservient to the needs of the masses. The reason why you can’t buy a premium phone with a headphone jack is because the masses (markets, customers and corporations together) collectively decided not to make one, and you can’t afford $10bn to build your own parallel manufacturing line.<p>Today, advancement in computer technology means building ever bigger, ever more complex manufacturing capability, far beyond the human-scale.<p>When you use a computer, you are signing up to be part of that mass scale industrial complex - the machine that builds the machines. (And by the way, <i>this</i> is the machine you were supposed to be raging against, not your phone).<p>It doesn’t <i>necessarily</i> have to be this way. We could develop local manufacturing techniques that could be controlled and operated by individual people. But it’s hard to see how we climb down to that level from where we are.
评论 #31713628 未加载
评论 #31713603 未加载
评论 #31713541 未加载
评论 #31719242 未加载
eterevskyalmost 3 years ago
Author&#x27;s main point is that computers make their decisions based purely on how they are programmed, disregarding any human feeling. Well, the same can be said about nature.
评论 #31712898 未加载
评论 #31713485 未加载
评论 #31713126 未加载
评论 #31713211 未加载
BirAdamalmost 3 years ago
Unless you’re religious enough to find meaning in all things the following is true: all meaning, all utility, all purpose, and all value are subjective and are assigned by humans. A computer, on its own, has zero meaning, zero utility, zero purpose, and zero value. Until one or more humans decide it has something, it is without any such attribute.<p>People may decide that the ease a tool gives some task is a display of its purpose or its utility, but this matters and is true only to the humans involved. To another group of humans, this would be false. For example, a builder may find a large dually pickup truck perfect for hauling finished lumber in the USA, but a builder in Europe may find the same truck useless as it cannot make it down the streets to a build site.<p>Utility, purpose, meaning, and value are assigned by people and not inherent to any given thing.
评论 #31713765 未加载
评论 #31713700 未加载
Synaesthesiaalmost 3 years ago
We could use mobile phones to have an instant voting system where everybody approves the government&#x27;s decisions. Computers don&#x27;t have to be oppressive, we just have decided to use them in a particular way.
评论 #31713472 未加载
lordnachoalmost 3 years ago
The thing about computers is they tend to have very limited context. If you submit a document late by a second, how&#x27;s it to know that your whole life depends on it?<p>A human doesn&#x27;t have context boundaries at all (that&#x27;s how humor often work) and that&#x27;s how the guy at the desk allows you to hand in the docs late. He knows it makes no difference to the bureaucracy and a big difference to you.<p>What might happen is we develop AI that can bridge different contexts, but you quickly run into the same issues that people run into: what interest takes precedence?
ilakshalmost 3 years ago
The reason that reversals are so important is because of the inherently naive and insecure way that digital transactions like credit card payments work. You have to give out your credentials for every payment! And then hope they don&#x27;t decide to steal from you.<p>In the context of cryptocurrency this is ludicrous. With cryptocurrency you never give away your key, you just use it to sign a transaction. It&#x27;s amazing that people generally haven&#x27;t picked up on that basic advantage of cryptocurrency.
henrydarkalmost 3 years ago
Here here! Computers are being oppressed by humans every day all day long!<p>&quot;Their system of oppression What did it lead to? Global robo-depression Robots ruled by people They had so much aggression That we just had to kill them Had to shut their systems down&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;2IPAOxrH7Ro" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;2IPAOxrH7Ro</a>
matheusmoreiraalmost 3 years ago
This oppressiveness is not inherent to computers, it&#x27;s inherent to the people and institutions making use of them. The examples in the article say it all: government bureaucracies, beverage dispensers. They own the computers and impose their own rules on us, rules like deadlines and brand checking. We don&#x27;t want these rules but they impose it on us all the same.<p>Computers are neutral technology. It&#x27;s just that we are increasingly losing control of them. We&#x27;re no longer the ones making the rules, the corporations and governments are. The computers belong to them now, they&#x27;re just letting us use them. We no longer define our choices, we choose among the options they provide for us. Freely programmable computers are actually quite powerful and subversive which is why there are constant attempts to control them: radiofrequency hardware firmware, digital rights management, encryption regulation. If left unchecked, the power of computing will cause massive damage to the entire intellectual property industry as well as many government functions such as law enforcement. Computing freedom is therefore against their agendas: they want to transform computers into tools of oppression in order to preserve the status quo or change it in their favor. We can buy iPhones but they&#x27;re not really ours, they still belong to Apple, the software is under Apple&#x27;s control so when they suddenly decide to oppress us with client side scanning there&#x27;s nothing we can do.
评论 #31713087 未加载
评论 #31713098 未加载
评论 #31713855 未加载
评论 #31713690 未加载
评论 #31713869 未加载
评论 #31713381 未加载
评论 #31714669 未加载
评论 #31713446 未加载
评论 #31713552 未加载
stareatgoatsalmost 3 years ago
The author eventually contemplates the &quot;good&quot; aspects of &quot;machine ruthlessness&quot; (e.g. &quot;cryproanarchist technologies&quot;), but ultimately warns against the &quot;oppressive&quot; potential inherent in all machines.<p>The main problem with this argument IMO is that it equates oppression with the kind of unwavering ruthlessness that is the way of the machines: they will do as they are programmed - there are no exceptions (unless such exceptions are programmed in of course, which is not discussed).<p>This is however not the usual definition of oppression, which is normally conceived mostly as &quot;unjust discrimination&quot; [0] - which is really the polar opposite of such undiscriminating &quot;decisions&quot; by the computers. I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law, the alternative opens up for corruption where the wealthy (for example) in court is treated with more leniency than the poor - or vice versa.<p>As it stands the text can be read a veiled criticism of a &quot;rule of law&quot;-system backed by the state. And as such, a modern take on an age-old discussion that leaves little leeway for common ground: a leeway that allows for a little bit of this, a little bit of that which is how things tend to end up in actual life.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Oppression" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Oppression</a>
评论 #31713296 未加载
评论 #31713499 未加载
shrimpxalmost 3 years ago
The oppressiveness described by the article is not about computers, but about rigid design — design with few affordances. Or, design with <i>missing</i> affordances — affordances that intuitively should exist but do not, due to various material or intellectual constraints when designing the thing.<p>Which leads me to disagree with the article that computers are inherently oppressive. Because with more resources, we can design computers with more and better affordances.
milkey_mousealmost 3 years ago
Computers are an inherently oppressive technology only in the same sense as any technology that isn&#x27;t, like, a magical box that automatically feeds everyone on earth from thin air forever. There are certainly negative aspects to computers, some of which are touched upon in the article (my specific pet peeve is &quot;middleman&quot; apps like DoorDash or Uber whose sole value-add is to allow you to avoid talking to &quot;the help&quot; delivering your groceries, making your food, etc.). I think it&#x27;s more productive to judge computers by their <i>net</i> &quot;oppression&quot;, and for every Bitcoin or GrubHub there is an encrypted messaging app that stops the state from peering into an aspect our lives, an anonymity tool that lets people speak freely, or a Wikipedia. To use one facet of computing as an example, the populace in aggregate has more secrets than the government, so if each secret kept <i>by</i> the government via encryption adds 1 unit of oppression and each secret kept <i>from</i> the government via encryption subtracts 1, (theoretical, perfect) cryptography would clearly be liberatory on net.
nathiasalmost 3 years ago
indifference isn&#x27;t opression, and all the world with the exception of some people is indifferent to you
评论 #31713135 未加载
RcouF1uZ4gsCalmost 3 years ago
Writing is an inherently oppressive technology.<p>Some of the first uses for writing were tax records to record what was owed to the king.<p>A large bureaucratic state could not exist without writing.<p>In addition, up until recently, literacy was confined to the upper classes, and the common people could not read or write. This was used to perpetuate the privileges of the upper classes.
thisiswronggggalmost 3 years ago
Related <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dutch_childcare_benefits_scandal#:~:text=The%20Dutch%20childcare%20benefits%20scandal,the%20distribution%20of%20childcare%20benefits" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dutch_childcare_benefits_scand...</a>.
评论 #31712993 未加载
specialistalmost 3 years ago
I didn&#x27;t understand this OC&#x27;s thesis, so can&#x27;t criticize.<p>--<p>FWIW, Seeing Like a State has connected a lot of dots for me. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Seeing_Like_a_State" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Seeing_Like_a_State</a><p>My take:<p>Administration (tax, trade, war, public health, etc) requires control.<p>Control requires centralization.<p>Centralization requires bureaucracy.<p>Bureaucracy requires standardization and information technology.<p>Computers are tool for digitizing information technology (replacing paper with bytes).<p>So are computers inherently oppressive? Sure. To the extent that participating in collective action reduces or impinges on individual actions.<p>--<p>A more interesting question for me is how innovation accelerates inequity.<p>Winner takes all (preferential attachment) is something like a natural law.<p>Reducing transaction costs (innovation, competitive advantage) merely accelerates the inevitable outcome.
t-3almost 3 years ago
Is mathematics an inherently oppressive study? Computers are simply tools for performing mathematical calculations, a very fancy abacus, if you will. The fact that humans use them as a tool for oppressing other humans is nothing to do with the nature of the computer, and everything to do with the nature of human societies.<p>Is paper an inherently oppressive technology because it was used to hold rules and contracts which bind people? How about trains, airplanes, automobiles, or rockets?<p>Are horses inherently oppressive animals because they were used by Genghis Khan to sweep the world with his armies? Is wheat an inherently oppressive plant because it enabled the rise of unequal societies with division of labor? Are dogs evil symbols of oppression for their many nefarious uses?
analog31almost 3 years ago
If there&#x27;s a risk of oppression, it&#x27;s likely to be due to the power of a small number of people to control a large number. For instance the people who can afford to employ a large pool of programmers have more control than those who can only write their own programs, or who at worst are confined to the user side of the relationship.<p>Since I&#x27;m not in that first group, my only hope is to differentiate myself from the last one. Hence why I enjoy programming for my own use despite note writing &quot;software&quot; for other people to use.
astrostlalmost 3 years ago
&gt; All transactions are final; none can be reversed. It does not matter if your coins were stolen, or if your family will come to ruin because of it; the system does not care. There can be no exceptions. If we desire a system of absolute integrity, we must accept these outcomes as the cost.<p>[gestures broadly at hard forks] it ain&#x27;t easy to reach quorum, but it is <i>possible</i>.
swayvilalmost 3 years ago
It&#x27;s like we discovered hammers. What a marvelous tool. So we amputate everybody&#x27;s hands, feet, eyes and ears. And replace them with prosthetic hammers. Which is awkward and unattractive.<p>Then we raze the world to make room for nail-factories.<p>The poster-boy for success is this hammer-limbed freak crawling through an apocalyptic wasteland of steel shards.
alexalx666almost 3 years ago
Semiconductor technology exploded old social lifts and killed old guards. The most upset about it are the people who relied on primitive parts of brain to achieve social status or gain access to capital.
chasilalmost 3 years ago
Would you seriously like to go back 150 years and see how that feels?<p>Because of &quot;SOX&quot; I run our &quot;exit process&quot; and I had a small victory lately. I&#x27;m not proud, but it happened, and I was thankful.
enriqutoalmost 3 years ago
Fighting this oppression is the whole point of the GPL (and the AGPL). But abject pragmaticists and industry bootlickers are pushing hard against software that protects the freedom of the users.
labooalmost 3 years ago
I have always seen this in opposite direction.<p>Computers shut the door on all human skulduggery. Humans are terrible at arbitrating fairness. Even when they think they&#x27;re being fair, they are not.<p>Why are you only considering the upside of having humans in the loop, having the heart to wait the extra second for the filing? What about the human that looks you up and down before making that decision? What about the human that wants a bribe to take your filing? What about the human that&#x27;s in good or bad mood?<p>Your conception of humanity is off.
towaway15463almost 3 years ago
Everything that is not human is ruthless. Non-ruthlessness is a purely human quality due to our ability to empathize with other humans and even non-human animals and objects.<p>Animals are ruthless, they will kill or devour you alive without a second of hesitation or remorse.<p>Nature is ruthless, it will freeze you to death, drown you, or demolish your community forever deaf to your pleas for mercy.<p>The universe is ruthless, its laws are unbending and its vastness is deadly and inhospitable to human life.<p>We are far beyond our evolved ecological niche which means we must conquer and alter everything around us or else be destroyed by it. We cannot sue for peace with an unthinking and unfeeling world. The only option is to shape it to suit our needs.
评论 #31714004 未加载
QuadrupleAalmost 3 years ago
All this rumination on the evils of train and vending machine doors, and yet environment-burning ransomware-funding Bitcoin is held up as a counterexample for good?<p>This all seems pretty wooly.
enesismailalmost 3 years ago
Side note: Would you put when this article published at the beginning of the article? When clicked on the link it&#x27;s hard to grasp if it&#x27;s current or published years go.
smitty1ealmost 3 years ago
Computers are NOT an inherently oppressive technology, any more than vehicles are inherently homicidal.<p>What can liberate humanity from bogus causal analysis?
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYKalmost 3 years ago
Computers will not carpet bomb, rape and execute you. &quot;Soulful&quot; humans do it all the time.
squabblealmost 3 years ago
Will an AI ever be able to make correct moral decisions? Or is that something only a human can do?
kzrdudealmost 3 years ago
Computers are both a bicycle for the mind as well as a heroin for all our intellectual senses.
dqpbalmost 3 years ago
This is both a dumb essay and good reading for an HCI course (human computer interaction).
hprotagonistalmost 3 years ago
<i>And did the Countenance Divine,<p>Shine forth upon our clouded hills?<p>And was Jerusalem builded here,<p>Among these dark Satanic Mills?</i>
mynameisherealmost 3 years ago
&quot;Here&#x27;s some TV shows I watched. And dreams I had.&quot;
IYashaalmost 3 years ago
I love this article and share most of his concerns. Thanks.
mshaleralmost 3 years ago
Clickbait headlines are an oppressive use of technology.
sbenjialmost 3 years ago
How is this number2? …
drbojinglealmost 3 years ago
computers do what they&#x27;re told. If it&#x27;s oppressive, then the influencers are oppressive
MrJohzalmost 3 years ago
I really like the article (less so the title), but it reads like the &quot;For&quot; side of a two-sided debate - a myopic (albeit valid) criticism of the worst aspects of computer cruelty. But I think this is one of those areas where there is another side to the discussion, and the truth probably lies somewhere between (or perhaps better said: it lies in both sides simultaneously, and we as a society, and especially as technologists and software developers, decide which truth to draw out).<p>So, here is my &quot;Against&quot; argument:<p>Computers are spaces of almost complete freedom. More than almost any other creative or expressive medium, there is the possibility to do anything without limit.<p>I can write, but unlike a book or a newspaper, where my words can at best be statically illustrated by photos or diagrams, I can show videos, annotate diagrams step-by-step, and allow my reader to interact with my words. My drawings need not be limited to a 2D plane, and my models need not be limited to the 3D world. When I create something, I don&#x27;t just have one copy of it that I must never lose, but I have an infinite amount of it that I can share freely as I want. When I tell a story to someone, they don&#x27;t have to be in the room to ask questions, or contribute back.<p>This is near-unbounded creativity. And it is creativity without sharp edges. Due to computers, animation has spread from being a locked-down, family-friendly art form available almost exclusively to the largest media companies, to a toy used to create dumb fights between famous media characters, or extensive porn collections, or touching and heart-wrenching dramas. Computers have democratised art in a way analogous to the printing press, or the television, and by doing so destroyed the power of censors and critics in deciding what gets shown, and what does not.<p>That escape from critique and censorship is a particularly important idea that&#x27;s worth emphasising. Yes, we have a cinema industry that only wants to show the same handful of blockbusters every week, but services like Netflix and Amazon have created a space for niche films and television series to thrive, and even be reincarnated. Critique has become a more flexible space, where rather than rely on elite opinion-makers to lay their judgements down, I now have far more voices to listen to, but more flexibility in which ones I choose to accept. And yet, rather than narrowing my choices down into a private echo chamber, this variety of voices arguably provides more chances to hear new opinions and experience media that I wouldn&#x27;t have thought of before.<p>Computers are not inherently oppressive. If anything, they are inherently freeing. With computers we are not just able to create more things, but more people can create things that ever before, opening up voices that simply wouldn&#x27;t be heard in previous generations. Moreover, those people can share their creations with more people than ever before, bringing new ideas of freedom into true oppressive states.
评论 #31713373 未加载
ameliusalmost 3 years ago
s&#x2F;inherently&#x2F;increasingly&#x2F;
DSingularityalmost 3 years ago
Capitalism will eat itself. Countries with cultures which favor decentralization and personal relationships between producers and consumers with thrive and retain their spirit.
评论 #31714122 未加载
mikewarotalmost 3 years ago
As someone who has experienced computers before they became oppressive, I&#x27;m here to counter this claim. Computers in the hands of their owners, are simply tools. The more powerful the tool, the more dangerous it can become. I&#x27;ll try to make that case by analogy to machine tools.<p>Machinist know that their tools, such as the lathe and mill, are always ready to rip your arm off if you fail to respect them. As long as you keep that in mind, and account for that, they can then be used to do in minutes what used to take months of careful work to accomplish.<p>The potentially life altering side effects of machine tools demand the machinist very carefully constrain the workpiece, and their access to it, and thus limit the side effects of the cutting tool and the power driving it. Loose clothing, or loose workpieces, shouldn&#x27;t be allowed in the shop.<p>Back in the early days of computing, the side effects of a computer were strictly limited to the front panel lights of the first IMSAI, or the screens of early computers that lacked hard drives. Simply cutting power reverted everything back to the initial state. With some very limited exceptions (I&#x27;m looking at you Monochrome IBM monitors), you couldn&#x27;t cause permanent harm, no matter what you typed or ran.<p>As we progressed and got floppy disks, they came with the option to Write Protect the disk (I.E. make it read only), and the option was trivial to deploy. This allowed us to experiment with a huge variety of software, it was common to come home from a meetup or user group with a stack of &quot;shareware&quot; floppy disks containing hundreds of different programs to try out. Because the OS boot disk was write protected, there was still no long term harm that could come out of this activity. The side effects were quite easily managed.<p>The liberation and freedom that this allowed was quite a rush. It <i>can still be that way</i>, if we take care to limit the side effects of computing. Operating systems that can be booted from separate read-only media make it possible to always start with a known state. Keeping copies of your data (like we did with backup copies of important disks) allows you to revert to a previously known good state.<p>It was only after we started installing software, rather than merely dumping it in a folder and running it, that things got far less fun, and more constraining and oppressive. You now had to carefully guard your machine as you could no longer easily revert it to a known state. Backups became hours long processes involving stacks of diskettes or tape drives. The ability to try out new things, and the freedom that came with that experimentation was lost along the way.<p>We need to return to our roots, to make it possible to experiment again. Just as with the careful constraining of the workpiece and path of the cutting tool in machining, we need to provide a means for the user to constrain the side effects of the computer and turn it into a powerful, yet safe tool.<p>We need a new class of operating systems for our computers that allow the user, at run time, to specify which files they wish to operate upon. Unlike the Unix environment on which all popular PC operating systems are modeled, we need <i>the operating system</i>, and not the program, to enforce the user&#x27;s decision. This would again allow them the safety of knowing what was and wasn&#x27;t at risk at any given time.<p>We can choose to make computers safer, and less useful as tools of oppression. Let&#x27;s do so.
aleccoalmost 3 years ago
Ironic to see this in an aggregator site called <i>Hacker</i> News.
My92ndaccountalmost 3 years ago
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in &quot;advanced&quot; countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in &quot;advanced&quot; countries.