The hacking of culture and the creation of socio-technical debt

I disagree with most of the examples. When newspapers are struggling, for example - it is just that, a struggle. It is not &quot;socio-technical debt&quot;. Newspapers in 1830 sold maybe 148 million copies annually, 0.4 million per day. Comparing that to the Census number of 12,860,702, we see that only 3% of people read the newspaper. In contrast daily newspaper readership today (print+digital) is 20.9 million, compared to 333.3 million population, 6.3% of people. Whatever social function newspapers serve, it is clear that they are still serving it. Actually, technical debt is when you <i>don&#x27;t</i> replace old, crunky stuff - arguably, if traditional news stories make up only 3 percent of social media content, then the social media companies should be figuring out how to refactor their platforms so as to be able to completely replace these old, legacy businesses.

“The history of the tech industry and culture is full of this tension between the internet as an engineering plaything and as a surveillance commodity.”<p>Great article, wish it talked about how we might address the issue.

Really enjoyed the piece.<p>A passing thought: the ethe of individuals in the 70s and 80s is important because of the people it informed in subsequent years. While many people still like to hack, code, etc., the relative proportion of people doing this and working in tech continues to diminish as the popularity and importance of the sector grows. I wonder if debt without values &#x2F; a more cohered zeitgeist is better or worse?

I find Schneier to be one of the most cogent observers and commentators on the influence of technology and corporate organization on our society. His writing is compelling.<p>Agree with others that I’m left wanting for solutions to the challenges he so clearly articulates.

It is an interesting thought, what would the world look like if these global trends continue, if the role of the state continued to dissolve under the influence of multinational corporations. Perhaps Liberalism (individual rights&#x2F;political equality) will turn out to be only a passing fad in 1000 years’ time. Corporatism allows transnational groups of people to coordinate in ways and at fidelities that have only recently been possible.

&gt; <i>emotionally binding citizens to a self-understood identity</i><p>In the vocabulary of Kurt Vonnegut, creating a &quot;granfalloon&quot;.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;granfalloon.indiana.edu&#x2F;what-the-heck&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;granfalloon.indiana.edu&#x2F;what-the-heck&#x2F;index.html</a>

The following SignSystem analysis may help understand the intricacies of influence in such systems we live amongst.<p>Overview: Biological Sign Systems: 5.56% Genetic Sign Systems: 1.00% Cellular Sign Systems: 0.00% Ecological Sign Systems: 0.00% Evolutionary Sign Systems: 0.00% Human Sign Systems: 66.67% Linguistic Sign Systems: 0.00% Nonverbal Sign Systems: 0.00% Cultural Sign Systems: 2.00% Technological Sign Systems: 0.00% Animal Sign Systems: 0.00% Vocalizations: 0.00% Chemical Communication: 0.00% Visual Signals: 0.00% Tactile Signals: 0.00% Artificial Sign Systems: 23.15% Formal Languages: 0.00% Road Signs: 0.00% Maritime Signals: 0.00% Aviation Signals: 0.00% Semiotic Theories: 4.63% Structural Semiotics: 0.00% Peircean Semiotics: 0.00% Saussurean Semiotics: 0.00% Biosemiotics: 0.00% Cognitive Semiotics: 0.00% Cultural Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotic Anthropology: 0.00% Comics Semiotics: 0.00% Computational Semiotics: 0.00% Cultural and Literary Semiotics: 0.00% Cybersemiotics: 0.00% Design Semiotics: 0.00% Ethnosemiotics: 0.00% Film Semiotics: 0.00% Finite Semiotics: 0.00% Gregorian Chant Semiology: 0.00% Hylosemiotics: 0.00% Law and Semiotics: 0.00% Marketing Semiotics: 0.00% Music Semiotics: 0.00% Organizational Semiotics: 0.00% Pictorial Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Music Videos: 0.00% Social Semiotics: 0.00% Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: 0.00% Theatre Semiotics: 0.00% Urban Semiotics: 0.00% Visual Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Photography: 0.00% Artificial Intelligence Semiotics: 0.00% Semiotics of Mathematics: 0.00%<p>Detailed Descriptions:<p>Biological Sign Systems: 5.56% Genetic Sign Systems: The concept of &quot;Genetic Sign Systems&quot; from &quot;Biological Sign Systems&quot; can be related to this article in a variety of ways.<p>Firstly, Genetic Sign Systems refer to the information passed through genes in a biological system. This information is encoded and decoded through various biological processes, and this system of communication is vital for the survival and development of the organism. Similarly, the article discusses the information systems that exist within our modern digital society, and how these systems are manipulated and exploited by large tech companies for profit.<p>Secondly, just as genetic sign systems are critical for the survival of a species, the information systems discussed in the article are integral to the functioning of modern societies. However, just as genetic information can be manipulated (through genetic engineering, for instance), our digital information systems are being manipulated by tech companies, with profound impact on our societies and cultures.<p>Lastly, the concept of evolution in biological systems can also be related to this article. In biological systems, genetic sign systems evolve over time through natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest. Similarly, our digital information systems are constantly evolving, driven by technological advancements and changes in societal norms. However, this evolution is often controlled and directed by powerful tech companies, leading to a variety of socio-cultural and ethical issues.<p>In conclusion, the concept of Genetic Sign Systems from Biological Sign Systems offers a useful lens through which to examine and understand the issues discussed in this article.<p>Human Sign Systems: 66.67% Cultural Sign Systems: The concept of &#x27;Cultural Sign Systems&#x27; within &#x27;Human Sign Systems&#x27; relates to the given blog post in numerous ways. Cultural sign systems refer to the ways in which societies create and interpret symbols and meanings within their shared cultural contexts. They are the sets of signs and symbols (including language, art, behaviors, rituals, norms, etc.) that a particular cultural group uses to create meaning and communicate with each other.<p>In the blog post, the writer discusses the hacking of culture by tech companies for data collection and the creation of socio-technical debt. This essentially represents a manipulation of cultural sign systems. The platforms these companies have created, such as Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, have become cultural in nature. They dictate the circulation of customs, symbols, stories, values, and norms - all elements of a cultural sign system - that bind people together in shared identity.<p>The post also touches on how culture is now increasingly mediated through algorithms. These algorithms, which are determining what content a user would find most engaging, are in essence controlling the cultural signs and symbols that are being circulated and consumed. This is leading to a fragmentation of shared cultural identity, as instead of binding people through shared narratives (a key aspect of a cultural sign system), digital platforms are creating self-reinforcing filter bubbles.<p>Moreover, the text discusses how tech companies have effectively &#x27;hacked&#x27; cultural sign systems to gather data. By rerouting the way information and value circulate, they are exploiting these sign systems for<p>Artificial Sign Systems: 23.15%<p>Semiotic Theories: 4.63%<p>Disclaimer: this is not an authoritative analysis. It’s generated using an experimental script (see former submission).