Elektrine lite

← Feed

@jannem@fosstodon.org

Post #3143617

2026-05-21 23:34 UTC

@gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social My point is, most kids were never interested and didn't learn, no matter how much you pushed a technical interface on them. The computer "revolution" of the 1980s only ever touched a geeky subset of mostly boys. For all that people hate on locked, "dumbed down" interfaces, those enable the large majority of people to make use of computers. Just like cars only became mass transport when you no longer had to be a mechanic to drive one.

Replies (2)

  • @gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com 2026-05-21 23:45

    @jannem@fosstodon.org @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social that is also true. Sadly, nowadays we're in a situation where people don't know how to use a computer or internet without the walled gardens and they feel the downsides of them. Then, instead of acknowledging their past decisions and do something about it should they wanted something better, some feel like they are victims and that tech savviness is somehow inherited / magically effortlesly acquired.

    Open ##3143618

  • @jannem@fosstodon.org @gabriel@fedi.gvisoc.com @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au @odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange @Gargron@mastodon.social I think there's a fundamental disconnect here, we see a mutually exclusive set of constraints, but I think they, in fact, are not. We can have a simple interface without proprietary code and enshitificatory gadgets built-in. We can have a terminal side by side with a file manager. We can have a gui package updater and a terminal method of doing the same. None of this is mutually exclusive, the only entities who profit from this artificial divide are the corporations working to bring it about. Fundamentally, any open system like what we want from our computers should be able to be configured in any way the user wants, including abstracting complexity away behind a nice gui, without fundamentally changing the paradigm of the platform entirely, and any abstractions built on top of open foundations should be rollable backward so you can go back to looser restrictions if you need to in certain cases. If a system can't go back and forth between these states, then it is neither powerful, nor open. For the car example from further downthread, you don't have to know how a car works, you don't have to be a mechanic, the car has to work and drive you places, and that's fine. However, anyone who has a passion for this stuff and likes to do it should be able to roll back the abstractions and fix your car for you, without them having to work specifically at the same company from which you bought your car. I've seen many of these threads pop up this year for whatever reason, and whenever someone writes a piece like the slow death of the power user, people will often interpret it like everyone needs to know this stuff, everyone has to be taught this stuff, or a variation of the above, and sure some of the discourse around this kinda implies it that way, but the basic premise there is that we're losing the ability to have agency when using our computers, and that agency is crucial for a lot of activism and censorship resistance. So yeah, I think in this instance, unlike many others, we can perhaps have our cake and eat it too.

    Open ##3143632