The Tech Revolution Needs Us

Technology is terrific. Technology is terrible. Or, in a mashup of Dickens with current norms of ahistorical, absolutist proclamations: these are the best of times; these are the worst of times. More accurately, as ecologists have long told us, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Technology is great, but we still gotta eat.

Thanks technology

To be clear, modern technology has been immensely beneficial. Communities, such as this one, come together through technology. People, cars, computers, and appliances can communicate continuously. Simulations and analyses that were impossible a generation ago are now commonplace. Tremendous gains in productivity, efficiency, and accuracy have been realized thanks to robotics and automation. The gig and sharing economy also opens income opportunities for those with computer skills, a spare room, or time to drive others around. In my own career, data management, analysis, scripting and programming have provided a middle class income in full time work with benefits.


Thanks technology

At the same time, downsides of technology are readily apparent. Social media takes time, but has yet to improve the quality of life for most users. Along with the benefits, internet technology and social media also reduce privacy, magnify mistakes, increase peer pressure, catalyze herd mentalities, and expose users to exploitation and abuse. Whereas, in previous years, most people could get by being good enough, we are now living in a winner take all world. I transitioned to work with technology, because academics has transformed into a field where the number of secure tenured positions is matched or exceeded by tenuous contract and adjunct work. Moving forward, there will be even less security as more classes move to online forums led by star instructors at prestigious institutions.

I am far from alone. The gig economy is largely part time work lacking benefits, breaks or security. The evolving situation in my field is common to many fields. Journalism, music and manufacturing have all felt the wrath of technology, as law, surgery, education, and other technical fields are now experiencing. Many who would be quite proficient in their work are losing out to a few fortunate practitioners. To add insult to injury, the winners are not necessarily the best or most qualified. Timing, chance, and above all, advertising are key. In this age of every man and woman is a star, true artists, experts and specialists are no better than an internet search. Impact is a product of social media followers, and self-promotion is preferred over experience. You promote yourself, while paid advertising takes up significant bandwidth and clutters web pages to the point of being unreadable.

In short, we all share in the benefits of technology in our daily lives. In the meantime, a few people grow extremely wealthy while most have suffered or stagnated economically. In addition, technology businesses gain competitive advantages by sidestepping taxes and regulations, while investors cram money into unprofitable ventures in hopes of future riches wrought from destructive industry disruption.

Of course, I don’t want to go back. I love having teaching resources available online. Nor, do I wish to go back to endless hours in bookstores searching for solutions to programming questions that I can now find online in minutes. Does anybody want to return to film only cameras, no online movies or music, or news from 3 networks and 2 local papers? The question is not about rewinding progress, it’s about how do we incorporate technological advancement in just, equitable and egalitarian ways.

Others have addressed these issues in much more detail than I can include in one post. Two that I have read, and who have shaped my thinking are Jaron Lanier with Who Owns the Future and You Are Not a Gadget, and Andrew Keen with The Internet Is Not The Answer. Neither of these authors, nor anybody else has solved the aforementioned issues. They do illustrate quite well the pitfalls of progress, and that we cannot rely on this ship or its current captains to steer us on a favorable course. They do offer insights and suggestions that are worthy of further discussion and, possibly, implementation.

Both Lanier and Keen make it clear that a few people and corporations are getting rich due to us. We are the resource. They buy and sell our information and contributions. Without us, they have nothing but millions of lines of code and, perhaps, a few samples. Our lives get a little easier and we save some money. A few coders make a decent living, fewer still get rich, and most of us scrape by in increasingly insecure gigs. This is not sustainable.

Both Lanier and Keen also suggest remedies, which I do not fully understand and will not adequately convey. Still, I will try. Lanier proposes that, since our information is monetized, then we should be paid for our contributions. Furthermore, each of us should have a say in what we want to share, and what we want to keep private. Our resource is not simply exploited, but is the lifeblood of a respectful two-way flow between the data handlers and us, the data creators. Keen adds the recognition of the need for regulation. The European Union has led the way with laws such as the right to be forgotten. If companies are exploiting our information, then we need to have a say in how our information is used.

From here, I want to build upon the notions indicated by these and other authors that present-day technological advancement is analogous to the industrial revolution. For this, I will copy from a comment I made in December. The tech owners are like the industrial owners in that they are robber barons taking advantage of technological advances to enrich themselves and trying to make a feudal system. Libertarian ideals rule. The middle class will keep declining and inequality will increase until we force them to change. One difference is that our personal information is now a major commodity. They won’t respect us personally until we make them, just as we had to persuade industrialists to respect the environment.

A key point is that the direction won’t change until we make it change. I do not see the profiteers sharing enough for a robust middle class without persuasion. Neither do I see government action having any significant effects, particularly with anti-regulation government haters running our government.

A significant question then becomes how do we persuade those who think that they are in control? Obviously, we organize. But, how? Can we persuade enough people to boycott the data exploiters to have an effect? Should we think in terms of boycotts until our demands are met, or would more people join if there were regular temporary actions, such as No Facebook Friday, Twitterless Tuesday, a Youtube-free week, or One Day Without Google? Would other actions help? For instance, can we educate people on how much of their information is taken and how much money is made from that information?

Beyond these direct issues are large scale conceptions of economics. Do we need a base level income provided by the government? If so, who will pay? Perhaps increases in corporate taxes would pay, but those increases are not coming any time soon. Are current developments further illustrating how our concepts of value are limited? What is value? How does money reflect value? Is it accurate or comprehensive? Are there better ways? Do we even need money? Or, do we need big data and central planning to account for each person’s worth and deserved share of available resources? Alternatively, can a self-organizing system of digital value replace national currencies without any centralized planning or records?

One thing of which I am certain is that each of us deserves dignity and respect. The current system exploits most and disrespects individuals by failing to properly value and reward our contributions. That being said, the respect goes both ways. We have an unprecedented array of resources at our fingertips. We failed to adequately respect our natural resources, and many living beings paid for it, and other will continue to pay for our arrogance for the foreseeable future. I believe that respect and humility on the part of both corporate owners and customers is called for. I had planned to transition here into a discussion of artificial intelligence and robot rights, but I have already made you read too much, so that will have to wait for another entry.

Cross posted at Daily Kos

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Alligator Ed's picture

I'm sure that was the goal of this essay--get us thinking. Some of the basic issues raised are perhaps technology-specific. Other issues are applicable to society as a whole. The sheer complexity of the societies in which we live preclude a simple answer to any of your questions--and you've raised some very good ones.

The following excerpt deals with much of the heart of current economic disequilibrium:

The tech owners are like the industrial owners in that they are robber barons taking advantage of technological advances to enrich themselves and trying to make a feudal system. Libertarian ideals rule. The middle class will keep declining and inequality will increase until we force them to change. One difference is that our personal information is now a major commodity. They won’t respect us personally until we make them, just as we had to persuade industrialists to respect the environment.

The rise of labor unions helped curb the rapacity of industrial barons, as did the enlightenment of the electorate. But the past century has shown the evanescent quality of this partial return to equity (by which I mean equitable distribution of wealth). Since at least 1980, the "middle class", whatever that used to be, is getting a smaller and smaller piece of the cake. Boycotts may work but they are only specific, not generalized.

Okay we boycott Google. What do we do then? Go to Yahoo? Like it or hate it, computers are no longer optional in US life, which can also be said about many other modern complex societies. When you look at privacy warnings issued by corporations, you should note that, although you do have the privilege of denying dissemination of personal information to third parties, BUT the second party, the corporation retains rights to what you submit for their own use.

Consider Life Insurance: in order for them to adjust risk pools, make projections, tailor different plans, etc, the "insurers" must have access to some of your data, especially health-related. For people;e to protest even the internal use of such data precludes that entity from doing its proper business. We are not talking about unconscionable profits here, even though that seems to be a growing issue with incessant, excessive price hikes. Even if the Insurer were content with a much smaller profit, your data is still essential to their purposes.

Assume the Insurer keeps all personal data private. That will consist of your social security number, birthday, phone number, etc. But even a "non-personal usage" of information can AND will be sold to other parties, such as how many people in your zip code have Disease A; how many people in your zip code are 47 years old; how many people in your zip code are of Asian descent, etc.

Eventually enough facts accumulate as a person uses more and more websites, your whole "personal genome" can be extracted, despite every company honoring your privacy rights. Is boycott of online shopping possible any more? Because, for instance, retail outlets are not conveniently located for the majority of people alternate means of accessing them, such as snail mail. Not only is the USPS slower, but it involves time on the part of the company receiving the orders to process, which thus requires employees to do that. A company wishing to stay profitable must reduce costs. That's why you usually pay less for good or services ordered online than by mail or phone. No privacy policy, which is only one topic raised in this essay, will eliminate that.

Would people, having experienced in the 21st Century conveniences willingly go back to coal oil lamps, no telephones, no electricity of the 19th Century? That is a rhetorical question. The march of technology drags us forward, willingly or not (your central point). Internal dissonances in what we want and how we get it defeat an "ideal solution". This is not to say that we shouldn't have privacy laws or labor unions. But this essay, short as it is, can only serve as a starting point. For which, I say thank you.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed Thanks for the thoughtful comment. We need to share information, but to what extent, and who decides how much? It's nice to know that I can block dissemination to third parties. I am guilty of not reading the privacy statements and EULAs close enough. Even if I did, I wouldn't stop using software and online activities. We can't expect that of anybody, but we still need to figure out how to influence the data harvesters. I know that we won't go offline, so I suggested temporary actions. Like a day without immigrants or mass walk outs, it won't be permanent, but there might be enough to be noticed. Anyway, as you mentioned, I don't have answers. We can discuss it further and try to implement something. If the economic polarization continues, I'm concerned that actions will be increasingly poorly planned, reactionary, populist, and violent.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@greenandblue

I'm concerned that actions will be increasingly poorly planned, reactionary, populist, and violent.

.

That sentence encapsulates the Trumpian approach well. Problem is, the "Loyal opposition" is not loyal and is War Hawk to the max.

up
0 users have voted.

Good perspective on some of the inducements of our electron focused existence. I try to avoid as much of the data mining as I can. Think balance and back-up are important. See too many (mostly young) people heavily dependent on gadgets. When the info spigot closes, wonder if skills such as ciphering and scribing will be lost? Not so much with us old dinosaurs! Smile

up
0 users have voted.

@QMS I also wonder what will happen if society need to rely on offline skills. Just about everything relies on digital realms. We can see with DDOS attacks how dependent we are on technology and the internet. What would happen if we lose the internet for longer than a few hours. Fortunately, the designers were trying to make a robust system of communication that could withstand war. It's still no guarantee.

up
0 users have voted.
Roger Fox's picture

My 64 gig phone is a tool.

You can't be a campaign manager or seriously work in a campaign without a good phone. And a laptop. Those gadgets are the tools of revolution.

up
0 users have voted.

FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

@Roger Fox True, but the tech companies are not always on our side, and often act counter to the best interests of individuals. We need to use the tools, and we need to make sure that the tool makers are not undercutting the revolution.

up
0 users have voted.

These folks make their money selling personal information. They rely on people engaging the information spigot to profit. As long as people show an interest in quaffing, that well isn't going to dry up. The specific owners might change, but the well is just going to get deeper.

up
0 users have voted.
Roger Fox's picture

Or to the OP?

up
0 users have voted.

FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

up
0 users have voted.

All of the responses have helped me to clarify my thoughts a bit. This is a short diary on a complex subject. In fact, there are several parts to this subject. One is the data gathering. How much do the developers of the platforms need to have access to? Of course, it depends on the purpose. Can we control the advertisers, at least? There are also content contributors to online sites, such as social networks. What do they deserve for their contributions? Beyond the keyboard, how can gig workers/contractors make a decent living and avoid being exploited by the platform owners? Also, can we make this transition less painful for the disrupted industries and the people losing careers? Each of these topics probably requires different solutions for a viable, just and equitable future.

up
0 users have voted.

Well, that was interesting and food for thought. One thing which makes an important point:

... One difference is that our personal information is now a major commodity. They won’t respect us personally until we make them, just as we had to persuade industrialists to respect the environment. ...

They don't, and the planet is dying.

That's because persuasion (the 'invisible hand of the market-place'? Pretty please, kind sirs/madam's, don't sicken and kill us for bigger personal bonuses? Oh, well, we tried and died...) is not enough to control rapacious institutions allowed to develop a pathological corporate culture where human and environmental health, as well as democracy, is so regularly sacrificed to ever-increasing profits for a relative few that they demand, as a long-established 'right', that their getting away with literal murder be 'incorporated' into law - and have this accepted by equally psychopathic and corrupted public servants.

It takes a consolidation of people power, typically in the form of a strong democratic government acting in the public interest and that of the country (these amounting to the same thing) enforcing strong regulations and oversight to get results.

Polluting industry does not have such destructive 'rights over life', any more than tech or other companies - or any persons/groups - have a right to sift through our personal private communications and lives, but until we within democratic countries achieve actual democratic government working for the public good - as such exist specifically to do - our rights will not be respected or protected for whatever time remains to us of a natural life support system consisting of interconnected complex life on the planet. Something currently estimated as likely to end for the maximized profit for the relative few somewhere between less than a decade from now to several decades in the future if we, the people of each industrialized country do not somehow take control now and somehow install sanity and people over profits within governance.

So, yeah, srs bsns, indeed. Our business, and none of the corporations/billionaires.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.