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.
“Capitalism creates innovation!”
The innovation:
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.
There’s no reason you couldn’t have people grow a new Internet that isn’t reliant on AWS and cloud flare and other big tech stuff, it’s just that it’s much easier to do that since it’s already there. And you still have the problems with spammers even if you try to move away from capitalism.
Spamming, scams, and many forms of white collar crime are a result of people either getting desperate for a decent living or being greedy and wanting infinitely more than others have.
If you take out these two possibilities guess what gets almost entirely extinct.
Is that really true though? Like there’s no reason I could be president except for the massive amount of connections and funding is need that effectively means it is not possible for me to be effective. (Nussbaum or Sen would say this is not about actual capability.)
I certainly think we could grow a new internet, but there is so much culture and forces pushing against this, that it may not be actually possible with addressing the systemic forces first.
Not to say we should do nothing (similar to recycling — we should do what we can as individuals, but it’s somewhat moot as long as industrial processes continue as they are now). We should do what we can and work toward a better vision.
(Edit: I think I was responding to only the first part of your comment because when I re-read it, I think I’m actually saying something similar to you)
Microscopes are crucial for diagnosing infections but can cost millions of pounds, making them entirely inaccessible for many people across the globe.
Good article but this stood out as a massive exaggeration. They can cost millions, much like a car can cost millions, but I can pick up a microscope sufficient for most clinical laboratory work for around $200-300. A cheap epifluoresence microscope can be acquired for around $2k.
Still an inaccessible amount for many, but it’s several orders of magnitude cheaper.
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
Too bad this doesn’t really mention the Fediverse or open-source software. Seems a next logical step
fediverse
FOSS doesn’t work as well for everything. But for something like this privacy and not leaking data is more important if you’re going to run it on your computer.
Yes, something where FOSS shines. Linus’ law and Kerckhoff’s principle.
