Is technology really just a tool? What does it mean to claim that technology is neutral? What reasons do we have for believing that technology is not neutral?
This thread is dedicated to answering questions such as these.
So there's obviously a big discussion to be had about this, but as it relates to current events:
Not sure if it's just me, but I feel like regardless of your political opinion, the recent events online and with big social media platforms surrounding the presidential election have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the most basic technology that is the internet is FAR from neutral. I think this is something that has been going on for a long time, especially in terms of information and news -- but the censorship and biasing has now become so blatant and forefront that they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Twitter, google, facebook, you name it have all invoked violations to "Terms of Use and Policy" to deplatform and silence someone holding the most powerful public political office in the United States while he was still in office. When attempts were made to create another app (Parler) to protect free discussion (or so they claimed), Apple removed that app from the App store for "violating Apple's rules against objectionable content." There has been a clear Big Tech alliance to silence DT to point that he went from being one of the largest internet presences in the world to having absolutely no voice in just a matter of mere days, all because they all agreed to take his mic away. It's as if he doesn't exist now.
Now, regardless of your opinion about DT, the fact that Big Tech is so monopolized to the point that they can take the loudest man on the internet and muzzle him completely in one swift motion, with absolutely no way for you to hear from him otherwise, speaks to a frighteningly blatant NON-NEUTRALITY rampant within these technological platforms. Replace him with anyone you want --if they were able to silence this dude who was so prominent (for better or worse), do any of us really have a chance at "neutral" treatment? Who decides what defines "objectionable content"? Do we trust that the people making these decisions are looking out for our best interest? That they A) care about the best interest in others or B) have the means to even comprehend what that could be? Don't they have the same power of what ideas/information/judgements show up at the top of the page when you make a Google search?
Can you ever have any semblance of "neutrality" in a process that tends towards full monopolization? Or is any decision a social media CEO makes inherently not-neutral? With that much power, is neutrality even at all theoretically possible in any capacity?
In order for technology to be neutral it would have to be optional.
Technology is not at all optional anymore.
Therefore technology is not neutral.
Framed this way, the conversation is no longer abstract. It's really just a matter of debating the truth of premise 2. Investigation of which is quickly revelatory.. This excerpt from ISAIF is an easy gateway into this conversation so I'll just leave that below for now.
PS: this is interesting to think of in the current events context of discussion surrounding vaccine mandates/passports; re governmental/abstract entity control over bodily autonomy.
"TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM.
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)"
So there's obviously a big discussion to be had about this, but as it relates to current events:
Not sure if it's just me, but I feel like regardless of your political opinion, the recent events online and with big social media platforms surrounding the presidential election have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the most basic technology that is the internet is FAR from neutral. I think this is something that has been going on for a long time, especially in terms of information and news -- but the censorship and biasing has now become so blatant and forefront that they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Twitter, google, facebook, you name it have all invoked violations to "Terms of Use and Policy" to deplatform and silence someone holding the most powerful public political office in the United States while he was still in office. When attempts were made to create another app (Parler) to protect free discussion (or so they claimed), Apple removed that app from the App store for "violating Apple's rules against objectionable content." There has been a clear Big Tech alliance to silence DT to point that he went from being one of the largest internet presences in the world to having absolutely no voice in just a matter of mere days, all because they all agreed to take his mic away. It's as if he doesn't exist now.
Now, regardless of your opinion about DT, the fact that Big Tech is so monopolized to the point that they can take the loudest man on the internet and muzzle him completely in one swift motion, with absolutely no way for you to hear from him otherwise, speaks to a frighteningly blatant NON-NEUTRALITY rampant within these technological platforms. Replace him with anyone you want --if they were able to silence this dude who was so prominent (for better or worse), do any of us really have a chance at "neutral" treatment? Who decides what defines "objectionable content"? Do we trust that the people making these decisions are looking out for our best interest? That they A) care about the best interest in others or B) have the means to even comprehend what that could be? Don't they have the same power of what ideas/information/judgements show up at the top of the page when you make a Google search?
Can you ever have any semblance of "neutrality" in a process that tends towards full monopolization? Or is any decision a social media CEO makes inherently not-neutral? With that much power, is neutrality even at all theoretically possible in any capacity?
One of my basic arguments goes as follows:
In order for technology to be neutral it would have to be optional.
Technology is not at all optional anymore.
Therefore technology is not neutral.
Framed this way, the conversation is no longer abstract. It's really just a matter of debating the truth of premise 2. Investigation of which is quickly revelatory.. This excerpt from ISAIF is an easy gateway into this conversation so I'll just leave that below for now.
PS: this is interesting to think of in the current events context of discussion surrounding vaccine mandates/passports; re governmental/abstract entity control over bodily autonomy.
.....................................................................................................................................................
"TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM.
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)"
Technology is evil, if you have doubts, what are you doing here?