Post #3062494

2026-05-17 21:53 UTC

@strange_new_words@tenforward.social @gwcoffey@mastodon.social the reason that is true is that humans imprint their tools with their intentions. You’re confusing human agency with its secondary effects in tools. Tools are not neutral but cannot be held responsible because they have no agency. Without humans operating them, or even giving them a simulated agency, the machines wouldn’t do anything. Hold humans responsible for the dehumanizing effects and harm done by their machines.

Replies (1)

@strange_new_words@tenforward.social 2026-05-18 00:35

@dan_kn@mastodon.social @gwcoffey@mastodon.social No, my friend, technology has an agency of its own. A hammer has a built in bias toward nails being pounded in, a gun has a built-in bias toward people being dead, an internet has a build-in bias for long-distance communication. If it's your intention as a human being to use one of these things for the opposite of what it's for, you can't do it. And here's the big one. This was hard for me to accept because I enjoy computers. The purpose of a computer is to process data, and the purpose of data is to reduce information to only its quantitative attributes so it can be aggregated and understood outside of its local context, all for the purpose of CENTRALIZING DECISION-MAKING. In other words, a computer is a machine has a bias towards authoritarianism. Any human who has the intention to use it for freedom, or to return the power to the people, is going to fail, just as surely as the people who want to protect kids by giving teachers guns. Like most people who enjoy computers, I persisted for a long time in refusing to believe it. I thought "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a computer is a good guy with a computer." I insisted technology was value-neutral, just like you are right now. Unfortunately, it's not.

Open ##3062495