
The Taming of Tech Criticism - dcre
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/taming-tech-criticism
======
devindotcom
Highly topical criticism, such as the threat posed by wearable cameras or the
revelation du jour from the surveillance apparatus, is difficult to engage
because it seems shallow. Many faults seem to be presented like misdemeanors
by errant entities given too long a leash, rather than the inevitable
consequence of a certain philosophy and lifestyle.

It's shallow but easy to engage with, because that kind of criticism is
actionable. You can ban Google Glass from your bar, or loudly demand (and
perhaps even receive) substantial legislative change on some issues. But when
someone tells you that this is something that started in the early 20th
century and you must question the principles that have given you such
conveniences as microwaves and mobile phones, not only is that criticism not
actionable, it's easy to reject as merely theoretical. It's easier to feel in
the right when you argue with someone claiming a century of creeping authority
and technocracy, than to deny things that are manifestly true, such as the
overreach that is supposedly the most recent result of that century.

But questioning the equation of progress=technology has been going on for a
long time, centuries, even millennia, and you may find yourself convinced if
you read Bacon, or Burton, or Plato, who said things long ago that we are
still saying today. The preface to the Anatomy of Melancholy is particularly
insightful and beautiful despite being some 400 years old, and I recommend it
to anyone interested in the idea of what ails "modern society" \- it may be
the same thing that ailed it in the early 17th century.

------
illinx
It's disappointing that this needs to be said out loud, but I really suggest
people complaining about the piece read til the end. It's fairly clearly
divided into two sections. The first is a straightforward critical review of
Carr's latest book which does good work exposing some of the worst examples of
Carr's sloppy thinking.

In the second part, Evgeny, a self-proclaimed "technology critic" reflects on
and examines his own complicity in the very type of thinking he'd previously
been criticising. It's actually incredibly self-aware and insightful, both in
the clarity of its self-criticism and how well it contexutalizes its arguments
within the history of thought on capitalism, social organization, and
technology.

I don't have any analytics on this but I'm fairly certain the reason that so
many people have been sharing this recently comes from this section.

------
knucklesandwich
I found this pretty fascinating (something like a mix of McLuhan, Marx, and
Greenberg) and the comments here incredibly inane. There IS a substantial
opinion being presented here about the reticence of tech critics to observe
the more fundamental socioeconomic issues underlying many problems in tech,
and the fact that people are complaining about $.50 words here would provide
enough ironic fodder for even the shittiest tech critics.

~~~
vacri
The core complaint of the comment which mentioned "$.50 words" wasn't the
existence of the words themselves, but the low information density. It's hard
to take your criticisms of inanity and irony seriously when you're clearly
misunderstanding what people are saying.

------
WhitneyLand
I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little
substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this
style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece?

Not that I'm anti-vocabulary, I was recently reading Denial of Death (Becker)
which was very dense, but every sentence was justified in understanding the
message.

Speaking of message, what were the key takeaways? Best I could tell it was
something vague about the best strategies for attacking people who think
technology has something positive to offer society.

~~~
vacri
I think it's funny that the author used such flowery language, yet seems to be
of the opinion that "criticism" and "critique" mean "opposition", a common but
incorrect belief. Film critics don't oppose films, for example. They discuss
the pros and cons of various films, and suggest films that may be appropriate
depending on your preferences. I wouldn't have thought a logophile would make
that error.

Then again, the author also thinks that 'Silicon Valley' is synonymous with
'technology'. I wonder how many venture-capital backed startups were involved
with the automation of the pilot's cockpit that he so mourns...

~~~
danans
I think he's actually attacking the mourning of cockpit automation, not
defending it. He uses it as an example of Carr's romanticization of manually
performed work.

~~~
vacri
I don't read the 'pilot' paragraph that way. It leads in with "Carr's basic
premise is sound" and the following sentence about the pilots is used to
support that first sentence. I do admit that I only read half-way through the
article as a whole, though; I found it pretty light on substance and more
trouble than it was worth.

On a tangent, regarding the self-driving vehicle, I would venture that the
critic referred to already has a... _cough_ "self-driving Carr" _cough_ ...

------
eli_gottlieb
So the _Baffler_ is joining me in full-blooded accelerationism?

