
User-friendliness and fascism  - iamelgringo
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/userfriendliness_and_fascism
======
Perceval
The commenter/Economist writer gets their political art history wrong. Apple's
roots lie in the Bauhaus, not in a fascist model of politics/art.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus>

The Bauhaus was broadly socialist, persecuted by the Nazis, but believed that
industrial mass production would allow architects, artists, and designers to
bring art/design cheaply to the masses. You can see that line of thinking
about product and design from Jony Ive back to Dieter Rams and on back to the
Bauhaus.

A great deal of modern architecture (e.g. the International School came out of
Bauhaus émigrés to the U.S. – Gropius and van der Rohe) is derived from the
Bauhaus. Modern architecture has been criticized not only initially by
fascists, but subsequently by a broader cross section of society, because the
architects were making concrete, glass, and steel structures than had little
or no human touch (cf. the landscape of Kubrick's _A Clockwork Orange_ ). Tom
Wolfe wrote a short critique of modern architecture in 1981 called _From
Bauhaus to Our House_.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bauhaus_to_Our_House>

The socialist aesthetic, privileging the designer, can be just as controlling
in its way as the fascist aesthetic. But this article gets Apple's aesthetic
lineage and politics wrong seemingly out of sheer ignorance.

~~~
chrismealy
The socialist aesthetic can also be as gentle and humanistic as William Morris
and the Arts and Crafts movement:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris>

~~~
Perceval
Of course, and part of the rivalry between Frank Lloyd Wright and the
Internationalists was FLW's inspiration (among other sources of inspiration)
drawn from the Arts & Crafts (which itself drew from the Pre-Raphaelites).

That said, FLW's politics were not strictly socialist, but were a complex
combination of liberatarian, pacifism, populism, Wisconsin progressive,
support for the Wobblies, and anti-semitism. Some argue that he was also close
to Kropotkin (an anarchist). This earned him the suspicion of J. Edgar Hoover
and a file in the FBI.

~~~
alexqgb
This comment threat came out of nowhere, HN, and it just made my morning. I
had no idea these topics had such currency here. Savvy eclecticism FTW.

------
bradleyland
Boy is this contrived. Control != fascism. A private corporation cannot be
"fascist", because it has no governance over its populace (customers). I can
choose, at any time, to purchase another brand of device. Choosing another
government is not nearly as simple.

~~~
powertower
Every time you purchase blank cd/dvd media you pay an additional tax that is
federally mandated and goes to a private corporation.

"A private copying levy (also known as blank media tax or levy) is a
government-mandated scheme in which a special tax or levy (additional to any
general sales tax) is charged on purchases of recordable media."

I'd say

~~~
bradleyland
Even if this were an example of fascism, which it's not, the government is the
entity enforcing this tax, not the corporation. It'd be great to _not_ have
corporations lobbying our government for ridiculous schemes like this, but the
solution is not to attack the corporation. They've not broken any laws, and
they're not the ones who created them in the first place. The problem is the
government who allows it.

------
jaysonelliot
I'm not a fan of the phrase "user friendly."

I've been a UX professional for fifteen years, focusing on the field of
usability.

To me, "user friendly" evokes images of Microsoft Bob, software "wizards" that
leave no room for user control, and chirpy in-dash car systems that overload
the user with icons and friendly messages, instead of just getting the
usability right in the first place.

I prefer the term "user subservient."

A good system should be subservient to the user, easy to understand, but
ultimately leaving the user in control.

Apple and Microsoft go too far towards "user friendly," and the Linux approach
veers too far towards user control without usability.

~~~
alexqgb
You, sir, have nailed it. I wish I could upvote this a hundred times.

------
joebadmo
I'm conflicted on the signified, maybe because I'm conflicted on the
signifier. I would be less conflicted, I think, if Apple products really did
"just work" as so many Apple adherents purport. But from my experience, it's
just a matter of degree, i.e. Apple products "just work" more often than MS
products do, but not that much more often anymore, and when Apple products
don't work, they don't work harder (or maybe it just feels that way because
people have so little experience trying to get non-working things to work?).

On a more abstract level, it just feels weird and maybe subversive to
characterize the restriction of choice as freedom. I mean, it does make a sort
of sense, esp. after taking human psychology into account in that restricting
choice to a manageable level might make it easier for people to make
decisions. But it still feels weird. Maybe it just exposes "freedom" as a
flawed concept, and a tense balance between orders of magnitude-larger forces
is all there is. That's a weird Lovecraftian world to live in, though.

------
spinchange
I think analogy is more apt including Linux (bear with me on this)

The current system is (sort-of) like Linux. Pretty ad-hoc and less easy to use
/ figure out for the un-initiated. Often basic things are left out, not
because they don't exist or work, but over principle.

The Democrats want to upgrade the current HC system to a Mac and the
Republicans are certain that we'll end up with Windows instead.

------
hammock
The author is just pointing out that Apple is a model of centralized control,
one-way order-giving and -taking.

For some people a word to describe that philosophy is "fascist." For these
people, fascism is not a form of government; rather it is a method, a toolset
for achieving your ends.

------
mahrain
To the author: "GNU/Linux, have you heard of it?"

~~~
alexqgb
More to the point, have his readers? Assuming they haven't (a safe bet), its
metaphorical value in framing a larger political problem is nil.

