Supporting Little Tech is the Practical Way to Deal with Big Tech

[ygolo]

Imagine if, during the Luddite rebellion, instead of skilled laborers breaking the machines, we had newsboys who came around and beat up the skilled laborers instead.

Imagine if, instead of passing regulations to help the "little guy" in an industry, you passed regulations to solidify the oligopolists' control of it.

That is precisely what is happening in the tech sector right now.

There is a lot of general messaging disparaging Tech. Realize that the majority of the people who work in Tech are laborers. So, if your stance and messaging are anti-tech, in practical terms, this is anti-labor messaging. As I mentioned in the other thread on Big Tech, this leads to anti-Asian hate, as well as hate against people on the Autism Spectrum.

In addition, you should understand that the actual technical people (often people with Autistic traits) are more likely to be laborers than management. So, in practical terms, the general broad-brush approach to disparaging Tech is disproportionately disparaging toward labor and actively harming labor.

So be anti-Apple Executive in your messaging or anti-Microsoft Executive (or anti-<Specific Big Tech> Executive) if you really must be negative. Your generic anti-tech rhetoric has real consequences and produces actual harm to tech laborers. Decisions are being made in regulations, funding, and the general sentiments of people worldwide.

I offer a more positive message(and the follow-on pandering regulation that follows): Support the "little guy" (or gal or non-binary) in Tech. Note that technology is one of the places where freelancers are widely used. Freelance, in practical terms, is still labor (without the benefits even). If you are neurodiverse in some way due to the conditions that confine how you can be productive, you may have no other option.

Some handbooks for people on the Autism Spectrum encourage people to consider freelance work an option. Many reasons apply more broadly to various non-standard work conditions, especially those that limit mobility through driving.

 

[ceecee]

Imagine if, during the Luddite rebellion, instead of skilled laborers breaking the machines, we had newsboys who came around and beat up the skilled laborers instead.

Imagine if, instead of passing regulations to help the "little guy" in an industry, you passed regulations to solidify the oligopolists' control of it.

That is precisely what is happening in the tech sector right now.

There is a lot of general messaging disparaging Tech. Realize that the majority of the people who work in Tech are laborers. So, if your stance and messaging are anti-tech, in practical terms, this is anti-labor messaging. As I mentioned in the other thread on Big Tech, this leads to anti-Asian hate, as well as hate against people on the Autism Spectrum.

In addition, you should understand that the actual technical people (often people with Autistic traits) are more likely to be laborers than management. So, in practical terms, the general broad-brush approach to disparaging Tech is disproportionately disparaging toward labor and actively harming labor.

So be anti-Apple Executive in your messaging or anti-Microsoft Executive (or anti-<Specific Big Tech> Executive) if you really must be negative. Your generic anti-tech rhetoric has real consequences and produces actual harm to tech laborers. Decisions are being made in regulations, funding, and the general sentiments of people worldwide.

I offer a more positive message(and the follow-on pandering regulation that follows): Support the "little guy" (or gal or non-binary) in Tech. Note that technology is one of the places where freelancers are widely used. Freelance, in practical terms, is still labor (without the benefits even). If you are neurodiverse in some way due to the conditions that confine how you can be productive, you may have no other option.

Some handbooks for people on the Autism Spectrum encourage people to consider freelance work an option. Many reasons apply more broadly to various non-standard work conditions, especially those that limit mobility through driving.

Tech labor should absolutely organize their workplaces and unionize. People that are anti-tech are not anti-people working in tech, not in my experience at all. People who are anti-tech generally just want to throw Elon Musk off a building and the bought off legislatures who's job it is to protect people from them, right after. Not the workers.

 

[ygolo]

Tech labor should absolutely organize their workplaces and unionize. People that are anti-tech are not anti-people working in tech, not in my experience at all. People who are anti-tech generally just want to throw Elon Musk off a building and the bought off legislatures who's job it is to protect people from them, right after. Not the workers.

Harming tech workers may not be the intention of the rhetoric, but it is the result.

In my experience, anti-tech people are anti-people working in tech. The distinction between tech and people working in tech is never drawn, and as I said, the majority of the tech sector is comprised of tech workers.

The current deafening rhetoric's practical implications cause real harm to tech workers, not Elon Musk. Asians get hate mail because of it. People on the spectrum get denied for things (because they are reminded of Musk, I guess).

Again, the regulations, the funding, and the general sentiment when people try to get things done worldwide due to the rhetoric are all, in practice, harmful to tech workers, and not Elon Musk alone--if it gets to him at all.

Tech workers have been faced with the equivalent of 2000 and 2008 during the last two years. They have been laid off. Many have lost their homes, forced to move, etc. What do they get in addition, that their work is "destroying the world"? This messaging is online, of all the irony. People are happily shiting on tech workers while simultaneously using the fruits of their labor.

For practical reasons, tech workers cannot unionize. Many have wanted to for years. There are small areas where they do. But their jobs can easily be shipped overseas (at least software).

I much prefer if the rhetoric switched to being pro-little tech, instead of Anti- whatever.

 

[ygolo]

There are three main reasons why supporting Little Tech is essential.

I mentioned the analogy of hurting the skilled laborers who made the machines while leaving the machines unharmed so that the fruits of labor are still available. This zeitgeist leads to:

1) The ineffectiveness of strikes for the use of work products already produced: People generally don't watch the same bit of entertainment over and over. They may revisit the piece, and some super-fans, especially kids, may watch the same thing many times. However, the primary mode of tech products is constant use. People check their phones, wallets, and keys before leaving their houses. In this regard, the smartphone has become as essential to people as money and the means of transportation and returning to their homes.

If network engineers strike, will people stop using the Internet in solidarity? Engineers design networks to be reliable, and engineers mainly improve and expand them, with some maintenance required. How many people stopped using iPhones when the laborers of a prominent supplier went on strike?

Strikes are significant for essential operations, but builders of technology that do essential operations can't do much if their products are to last despite constant use.

Adding to the ineffectiveness of strikes:
2) The lack of alternatives: Suppose people don't want to support Starlink's efforts to provide internet access to rural communities. What's the alternative? It has to be a little competitor, no? People don't like the state of Twitter? What's the alternative?

Think about why we use the products we do. Technology is all about solving problems in a way that makes people productive.

3) Technical work makes society more productive in intended ways. This belief is why technical workers often choose to learn the skills of their crafts rather than other ways of making a living.

Technology can go awry, however.

First, unintended consequences are constantly part of every aspect of our culture, including technology (but also laws, regulations, politics, media, fashion, etc.). The best way to deal with these, IMO, is to be flexible enough to deal with changes. (Besides, only a few people actively want to return to living off the grid --eschewing technology. Even these people will use some of it.)

Second, cronies will co-opt the impulses of those who want to do good to bend to the cronies' maximum enrichment.

However, we can overcome these challenges with the diversity Little Tech offers. Similar to the wisdom of the crowds, people pulling in competing directions tend to give the best results.

-----
What do I mean by supporting little Tech regarding regulations, funding, and general sentiment?

Regulations

When deciding on a policy about the future of a new technology, experts working in the field with little direct financial incentive to guide one way or another should be preferred over doomers using the narrative to drive their sales ironically.

Funding

Politicians are deciding how to stay ahead of other nations--political and global machinations. Politicians always tie funding to regulations. I believe they should. But if the incumbents have captured the regulation process, it won't work as expected.

Venture Capitalists say that the Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. I'll say that no one should.

VCs, in general, foster the winner-take-all landscape that leads to Big Tech. The one winner is supposed to make up for all the losers' losses in their portfolios.

Governments should fund open source, where the labor goes to the commons.

General Sentiment

Technology is work. The technical products we use, both what we see and what happens in the background, are the product of labor.

Imagine being laid off from Twitter and painted with the same brush as Elon Musk. Imagine being axed from Amazon and painted with the same brush as Jeff Bezos. Imagine being let go from Meta and painted with the same brush as Mark Zuckerberg. Imagine starting a competitor of these companies and being painted with the same brush.

Sh*tting on Tech = Sh*tting on Tech Workers. Management and executives have sh*t shields. They generally come from the political class, no matter what sector they supposedly rule. The billionaires are one thing, but the millionaire crony networks can be just as bad. Making it easy to take down their Fiefdoms and Kingdoms would go a long way to battle Big Tech.