Post #2330119

2026-04-25 10:29 UTC

@fasterandworse@hci.social That's true. But the argument often is to, for pretty much the same reasoning, not attack them for having no utility. Because that opens up an avenue for immediate dismissal. (And, alas, for some areas that we previously dismissed or underserved, the tech in question *is* the best current approach available. I don't like that either, because it shouldn't be true. And possibly it shouldn't be used regardless. But that speaks from a position of privilege as well.)

Replies (2)

@fasterandworse@hci.social 2026-04-25 13:14

@larsmb@mastodon.online If you find it has utility for something, it's the "something" that you have found, not the "utility" What you need is for that "something" to be taken as a fixed purpose for which the best methods to satisfy it are deliberated over. Resulting in a product which *the maker* can assert is created to satisfy the specific purpose. That's why these things are so popular for crime, it's a purpose that is not expected to be openly asserted as the purpose it was created for.

Open ##2330120
@davidgerard@circumstances.run 2026-04-25 13:17

@larsmb@mastodon.online @fasterandworse@hci.social > But that speaks from a position of privilege as well. gonna dive in to this one. What privilege, *precisely*? If you say this, you need to say what you're talking about.

Open ##2330126