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.

 

[ygolo]

I think me posting has changed what the algorithms that feed me articles shows me. The invasiveness of the targeting algorithms are a little scary.

This was in my feed:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/little-tech-startup-washington-00160815

 

[Coriolis]

I think me posting has changed what the algorithms that feed me articles shows me. The invasiveness of the targeting algorithms are a little scary.

This was in my feed:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/little-tech-startup-washington-00160815

What feed, where?

The way to avoid being targeted by algorithms is not to make accounts, and to clear browser cache and cookies frequently.

I agree with your thoughts here, but along the lines of my comment above, put some of the blame on users for the negative aspects of tech. Users too easily give up privacy and autonomy in the name of convenience. Tech is a tool just like their lawn mower or vacuum cleaner. Best to read the manual and learn about its proper operation, so you remain in control and know what you are doing. Yes, a computer or cell phone is much more complicated than a vacuum, but you don't need to know how to program it to know enough to rein in its more sinister influences. All of this is a big reason I have not used MS products for almost 2 decades now, and why I don't have a
google or youtube account.

 

[SensEye]

Users too easily give up privacy and autonomy in the name of convenience. Tech is a tool just like their lawn mower or vacuum cleaner.

Very true. However, some of that convenience is very appealing. For example, I love how YouTube makes music recommendations based on the music videos I watch. I found some stuff I really like from artists I've never heard of as a result. That's a win.

I figure my privacy has more or less left the station, so I don't stress about it too much. People always carp about targeted ads, but what's the difference? If a website can show you an ad (ad blocker notwithstanding) they are going to show you one. Why not have it for a product you might be interested in? I'd rather see ads for tech gadgets than designer shoes for example.

Same with the above feed example. If you want news feeds, might as well be something you have an interest in. A quick check of Politico shows an article: London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan wants to host the Super Bowl. Would you rather see that in your feed ygolo?

Of course, there is a downside. Somebody out there knows every kind of porn I've ever watched. Most of it is pretty mainstream, but I've looked at some pretty bizarre stuff in my day. I'm pretty shameless, but I'd still prefer not to have to explain.

 

[ygolo]

What feed, where?

It's my Google feed.

Unfortunately, I do have an account for convenience.

Google seems to be going the way of Microsoft and Apple before them.

Weirdly, I agree a lot with what's in the article. I just didn't realize that I was making my own echo chamber.

The problem with no account is that you see the pablum of sexualized and sensationalist content instead.

I do like curating my own feed, but I want to avoid echo chamber effects.

 

[Coriolis]

It's my Google feed.

Unfortunately, I do have an account for convenience.

Google seems to be going the way of Microsoft and Apple before them.

Weirdly, I agree a lot with what's in the article. I just didn't realize that I was making my own echo chamber.

The problem with no account is that you see the pablum of sexualized and sensationalist content instead.

I do like curating my own feed, but I want to avoid echo chamber effects.

I don't know where I would see this uncurated feed. I don't log into anything google. I go online and search for what I want, usually with duckduckgo. Related things will be displayed, which are often of interest. For instance, if I search for gardening tips, I will see other articles or videos offering similar. So far I haven't been spammed with random sex and sensationalism.

I actually have a google pixel phone now, without any google apps. I installed lineage rather than the stock android shipped on it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

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.

Contract labor, also. Often with no benefits or PTO. Sometimes there is a nonchalance towards working off the clock without compensation.

I would say yes, tech needs to be unionized. PTO should also be mandatory for every single worker in the country.

 

[ygolo]

I don't know where I would see this uncurated feed. I don't log into anything google. I go online and search for what I want, usually with duckduckgo. Related things will be displayed, which are often of interest. For instance, if I search for gardening tips, I will see other articles or videos offering similar. So far I haven't been spammed with random sex and sensationalism.

I actually have a google pixel phone now, without any google apps. I installed lineage rather than the stock android shipped on it.

I'll need to try those things out.

YouTube feeds me nonsense if I'm not logged in though.

Edit: I just realized, without a Google account, there isn't a news feed at all.

 

[ygolo]

Contract labor, also. Often with no benefits or PTO. Sometimes there is a nonchalance towards working off the clock without compensation.

I would say yes, tech needs to be unionized. PTO should also be mandatory for every single worker in the country.

It'd be great, but what keeps employers using overseas talent?

If done, you'd need to partner with another union, I think. Maybe chemists?

Even grad students needed to align with UAW.

 

[ceecee]

It'd be great, but what keeps employers using overseas talent?

If done, you'd need to partner with another union, I think. Maybe chemists?

Even grad students needed to align with UAW.

As a parent of two grad students that are unionized, both with the UAW (different uni's) I can tell you that coming under the umbrella of a big union with resources seems to be the most successful way to go. Especially in parts of academics that have never been unionized.

 

[Coriolis]

I'll need to try those things out.

YouTube feeds me nonsense if I'm not logged in though.

Edit: I just realized, without a Google account, there isn't a news feed at all.

I get my news from news sites. I like the layout of the CNN page, but will go to NPR, AP, BBC for more diverse reportage. I also listen to NPR in the car as I drive around most days.

I really consider most people complicit in alot of the bad tech trends going on. People need to stop being so free with their personal information, and do the simple things that will make it harder for companies and others to track their online activity and target them with anything.

 

[ygolo]

I wanted to stress again that there have historically been collectivist actions that work much better in tech than unions (though the options should still be persued).

Co-ops and consulting networks are pretty common. They tend to grow around open source.

Open source, in fact, has a win rate against Big Tech that would make almost any union in another sector envious.

Every programming language that won is open.

Open operating systems (like Linux) dominates the underlying technology of the cloud, and is generally preferred by tech-savvy professionals as their main system.

Wikipedia beat Microsoft.

The game theory around how open source (a corner stone of Little Tech) keeps winning against Big Tech, I think, is simple.

As long as a particular product doesn't become a monopoly, and is still only an oligopoly, the one coming from behind can partner with the open source community to comodify the advantage of the lead player. It's a "reset", that'll give a new entrant, or a trailing competitor a new landscape.

This process ultimately doesn't create predictable "business value", but we know how valuable, in real terms, the co-op built products like Wikipedia, Linux, and every major programming language is.

These things make everyone more productive, even though, in the myopic measure of profit per worker, the "productivity" is competed out.

We know a modern software engineer, who needs far less training, gets a lot more done than PhD Mathematicians/Computer Scientists did during the punch-card days. Most of this will be unmeasured as "business value", because everyone has access to things that make people more productive in real terms.

Taking the game theory to the limit, the most anti-trust thing to do in the tech sector is to build a co-op/consulting network around open source that takes on Big Tech.

The best research is done in every field in a collegiate and open way. Software is no different.

Security through obscurity has always been a fool's errand, because the weakest links in any security system are it's people, and it has been for ages.

Do you trust any of the assholes building "AGI" now?

My claim is that any single player, or group will always end up being the worst power hungry people to be in charge of such a thing. We're far from it happening, and we see this dynamic in full force.

 

[Coriolis]

I am all for open source - software, textbooks, whatever else is out there. That's why I have used linux at home for almost two decades. Unfortunately most employers still use/require microsoft.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am all for open source - software, textbooks, whatever else is out there. That's why I have used linux at home for almost two decades. Unfortunately most employers still use/require microsoft.

Linux is actually much more useful often because certain tools only exist for it or work much better with it.

 

[Coriolis]

Linux is actually much more useful often because certain tools only exist for it or work much better with it.

Linux has also historically been a much more secure OS.

 

[ygolo]

I think it's a fool's errand to put the "genie back in the bottle" in terms of AI.

This is especially true since AI is just a buzzword. It's synonymous now with digital technology.

If the ethos now is to get rid of digital technology, which employs a ridiculous number of workers, the result of your speech-act denigrating the whole sector is decidedly anti-worker.

Direct comparisons:
Workers in tech: ~9 million
Workers in media: ~3 million

This is what the broad-brush anti-technology stance some in the media are taking frames. A broad-brush anti-technology stance among media figures is decidedly anti-worker.

The position needs to be more nuanced.

Who has control? Who has access? What are the data sources? How do you regulate use cases?

Technology is a part of culture. Denigrating the whole idea of technology is similar to denigrating the whole idea of social organization or the whole idea of passing laws. It's so broad-brushed that it's bound to be harmful.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think it's a fool's errand to put the "genie back in the bottle" in terms of AI.

This is especially true since AI is just a buzzword. It's synonymous now with digital technology.

If the ethos now is to get rid of digital technology, which employs a ridiculous number of workers, the result of your speech-act denigrating the whole sector is decidedly anti-worker.

Direct comparisons:
Workers in tech: ~9 million
Workers in media: ~3 million

This is what the broad-brush anti-technology stance some in the media are taking frames. A broad-brush anti-technology stance among media figures is decidedly anti-worker.

The position needs to be more nuanced.

Who has control? Who has access? What are the data sources? How do you regulate use cases?

Technology is a part of culture. Denigrating the whole idea of technology is similar to denigrating the whole idea of social organization or the whole idea of passing laws. It's so broad-brushed that it's bound to be harmful.

I think it's very easy for people to get disillusioned with technology these days. Optimism about technology was an important part of the 80s/90s zeitgeist, and I miss it, but it's a different century.

I once was extremely optimistic about the internet and how it might affect society and look how that turned out. I realize that AI is just a tool, but I think we probably won't put it to good use, same as with everything else. At the end of the day, it comes down to the economic systems in place.

New technology always has so much potential but it's never really realized because of other factors.