Digital Moderation and How To Decline a Technology - DBR 084

I’m going to dive into the logic of the debate around technology.

 

Purpose: To earn a stronger hearing for honest critiques of technology: We’ll discuss a common pattern where critics are dismissed as "anti-technology" or "Luddites".

 

What’s in it for you: To be encouraged and equipped to question the rhetoric that faces us from a technology-forward culture. And/or answer the question: “You don’t use social media X, what’s wrong with you?” And/or generate the courage to shut something down, like Cal Newport suggests in Digital Minimalism. And/or, if you’re a boss and are wondering how to improve your organization’s productivity, consider similar arguments in Cal’s A World Without Email.

 

My claim for the next 45 minutes…

• I am a critic of certain kinds of technology. I and others who do this often face a particular kind of counter argument.
• This typical counter-argument pattern equates general use with harmlessness.
• I’ll show that this general use argument is not well-supported with evidence.
• By highlighting how past critiques, like those of television, have been "vindicated," I’ll establish the validity and necessity of such discussions.

Introduction to critiquing technology and my position

• My background and motivation for critique
• Examples of technology I think are challenging

The Common Pattern of Argument Against Technology Critics

• Stereotype of critics: Often labeled "anti-technology" or implying a lack of understanding
• The counter-argument pattern
• Premise: A new technology (X) is critiqued (e.g., Facebook is a problem). 2. Counter-claim: People previously critiqued a di erent new technology (Y), and those past critics "were demonstrated to be wrong" because Y is now in general use and "didn't kill us".
• Challenge to Critic: The critic is then asked to prove why technology X is "worse than" technology Y. * The speaker notes the di iculty of comparing disparate technologies like Facebook and television (e.g., weak comparison points like "looking at screens" or "consuming attention").
• Dismissal: If the critic cannot prove X is "worse," they are dismissed as a "Chicken Little" or an "old curmudgeon" interfering with enjoyment.
• Historical example: "Go-to statement" in early programming languages
• Initially debated as "useful in the hands of a knowledgeable user".
• Now universally agreed to be bad programming practice because it produced buggy, hard to maintain, and clumsy code..
• This pattern often appears in discussions where convenience is the primary perceived benefit of a technology.

Flaws in the Counter-Critique's Logic

• Lack of Burden of Proof on the counter-critic
• False Equivalence: General use does not imply harmlessness

Television as a Case Study: Vindication of Early Critiques

• Early critics of television have been vindicated, though this isn't widely recognized.
• Three primary critiques of television
• Critique 1: Content Quality
• Critique 2: Waste of Time/Attention
• Critique 3: Advertising as Brainwashing/Propaganda

Recap