![]() I think that view is myopic and misguided for several reasons.įirst, I think it’s a mistake to tether “techno-optimism” to overly binary conceptions of “good vs. closed” technology then “technology could be used to make the world worse,” he says. The irony of Doctorow’s definition of “techno-optimism” is that, as he notes, it’s actually rooted in the fairly pessimistic belief that unless we do something to affect the balance between “open vs. But I do have a problem with the sort of ‘you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us’ sort of attitude Doctorow adopts here and in much of his past writing, which attempts to force a false choice upon us regarding “open” vs. I have no problem with Doctorow issuing a clarion call to programmers to “find or make better tools.” Power to him and the developers who take him up on the request. That is, to be pessimists and optimists: without expert collaboration, activists might put themselves at risk with poor technology choices with collaboration, activists can use technology to outmaneuver autocrats, totalitarians, and thugs. The trick for technology activists is to help activists who use technology to appreciate the hidden risks and help them find or make better tools. … Herein lies the difference between a ‘‘technology activist’’ and ‘‘an activist who uses technology’’ - the former prioritizes tools that are safe for their users the latter prioritizes tools that accomplish some activist goal. It falls to techno-optimists to do two things: first, improve the alternatives and second, to better articulate the risks of using unsuitable tools in hostile environments. In other words, recalling his definition of techno-optimism, Doctorow is basically saying that the way we “steer” technology to “make the world better” is by taking steps to foster or favor “open” technologies over “closed” ones: There are many motivations for contributing to free/open software, but the movement’s roots are in this two-sided optimism/pessimism: pessimistic enough to believe that closed, proprietary technology will win the approval of users who don’t appreciate the dangers down the line (such as lock-in, loss of privacy, and losing work when proprietary technologies are orphaned) optimistic enough to believe that a core of programmers and users can both create polished alternatives and win over support for them by demonstrating their superiority and by helping people understand the risks of closed systems. He turns to that dichotomy next as he seeks to essentially marry “techno-optimism” to a devotion to the free/open software movement and a rejection of “proprietary technology”: “bad” technology or technological developments. What this definition suggests is that Doctorow has a very clear vision of what constitutes “good” vs. Techno-optimism is an ideology that embodies the pessimism and the optimism above: the concern that technology could be used to make the world worse, the hope that it can be steered to make the world better. In order to be an activist, you have to be… pessimistic enough to believe that things will get worse if left unchecked, optimistic enough to believe that if you take action, the worst can be prevented. But let’s begin with Doctorow’s conception of the term.ĭoctorow defines “techno-optimism” as follows: Both chapters appear in The Next Digital Decade and are labeled “The Case for Internet Optimism.” Part 1 is sub-titled “ Saving the Net From Its Detractors” and Part 2 is called “ Saving the Net From Its Supporters.” More on my own thoughts in a moment. I summarized my own views on this issue in two recent book chapters. ![]() ![]() I’ve spent a great deal of time here defending “techno-optimism” or “Internet optimism” against various attacks through the years, so I was interested to see Cory Doctorow, a novelist and Net activist, take on the issue in a new essay at Locus Online.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |