(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . A Third Wave or a Ripple? Is Using Tech's Tools against Reaction Possible? [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-04-18 This is a very thought-provoking article about the concept of a third wave of algorithmic accountability, or at least the possibility of such a wave. You should really read the entire thing, because my summary here will not do it justice. I can wait; I have snacks. For those who did not read the article, its author, Tarnoff, argues that people trying to use technology to build solidarity have moved through three waves, the third of which we are in the beginning of now. The first wave was about alarm and critique -- facial recognition discriminates against Black people, for example. The second wave was about regulation and control -- maybe we ought to ban facial recognition software. The third wave is about creation -- maybe we should build apps under social control rather than capitalist control. Further, Tarnoff discusses the correct notion that the third wave suffers under the weight of history. Technology was built under the auspices of capitalistic control and thus has a politic of oppression built into it -- escaping that politic is going to be difficult. Tarnoff, because of unpredictable nature of society and technology and the way they interact, something he labels drift, believes it is possible. I am not so sure. Again, before we get too deep, please go read the article. It is long, but detailed, well expressed, and well argued. My summary in no way does it justice, and I may simply not be conversant enough with the flavors of political philosophy, or intelligent enough, to fully understand the nuances of the argument. But we have been here before. And we have failed. Now, past failures are no guarantee of future failures, and certainly no reason not to try again. But they are instructive. At the dawn of the internet arrived something called free software. Many of you, especially those of the younger generations, are probably wondering why I am claiming that free software has failed -- doesn't the internet run on free software? No, it runs on open source software, largely. They are not the same thing. Free software required that you completely open the source code -- "free as in freedom, not as in beer." Anyone could look it, change it, and the distribute those changes. Companies did not like this, and so people like Tim O'Reilly came up with open source software licenses that let you control how much of the code is open source at all, how much you could do with it. You could just allow people to read it, or take something, change it, then lock the changes away and sell it. You could open it just enough to allow people to work with your platform, but not take your code and build a better, competing platform. Free software was not perfect as an idea, of course. Sometimes you do want to limit who can use your code, but I believe ways around that could have been found. But it represented a radical break with the notion of ownership. And it was crushed. How it was crushed is instructive. People need to eat. Most free and open source software projects depend on volunteers working part time for free or very little. That meant that companies could very easily drive support for certain projects by ether allowing their employees to work on them on the company's time or providing financial support to the developers and foundations that support their favored projects. And that is precisely what they did -- choosing to support projects that worked under open source licenses. The above history is somewhat reductive but true in the broad strokes. Because technology was subject to capitalistic forces, it could not be used in a meaningful way to subvert capitalism. There is no third wave coming to save us. Technological change is too easily subverted -- and I say this as a technologist. I understand the desire to create, to lean into what we do best. And technology can absolutely make the world a better place. The fact that I am writing this rather than fending off sabretooth tigers is proof enough, I think, of that proposition. But technology as a liberating force will always need a societal backstop. Even something as revolutionary as the birth control pill cannot live without government protection. If there had been government funding for alternative technology platforms, or a universal basic income, perhaps the fight between open source and free software would have ended differently. The first and second wave are too critical to success to be relegated to history. Technology can help, but only in the proper societal context. Politics mattes, economic relationships matter, and there is little technology can do to change those basic facts. So, yes, build a better mousetrap. But don't forget to organize. Want more oddities like this? You can follow my RSS Feed or newsletter. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/18/2164420/-A-Third-Wave-or-a-Ripple-Is-Using-Tech-s-Tools-against-Reaction-Possible Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/