I think both as tech becomes more ubiquitous, but I think the clarity is coming from a lag in perception because of the exact sentiment of "keep politics out of tech". I think a lot of programmers, particularly ones from a generation older than the average tech worker today, got into the field for partially the reason of that separation. It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally. That type of ignorance is no longer possible in tech for the most part, but the desire for it still is there for some, in all generations.
> It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally.
I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally. Because most political involvement is precisely the opposite of effective helping.
Politics is arguing that climate change is a communist/leftist/whatever invention. Tech is launching a satellite letting us quantify the actual impact. Politics is talking that education is important (except it must be the right education). Tech is giving people access to it (all of it) for free. Politics is driven by conflicting ideologies, and mostly detached from reality. Tech culture used to stick to the real world. Dilution of that is what people complain when they lament tech mixing with politics.
(Yes, I'm probably older than average tech worker.)
What politics in the US government currently is or what it is in a typical discussion between two people on the street does not define politics. I'm also not talking political science. I'm also talking morality, not just politics. Your grievances seem to be about the current political climate rather than politics generally. I'm with you on the political climate currently for sure. Given HN's opinion of itself, I'd hope they'd at least strive for better in political discussions though.
The classic example is the building of the atom bomb. Sure some people may build a satellite, but far more will program things to show ads. The choice alone to work on the satellite and not the ads is both a moral and political decision. If you don't make the distinction, you're ignoring the underlying issue. And it's of course not as black and white as "make a satellite to get data for science" and "make ads".
You're right that tech can power change in a positive way, but it's much more about the choices we make in regards to what tech we work on. That's exactly my point. All tech is a tool that must be used with care.
We seem to be in agreement after all. I wish there were two simple, distinct words - one for what you meant by "politics", and one for what I meant.
My gripe isn't with US political climate though - it's the same thing everywhere, at every level. The same issues apply to New York and San Francisco, and to my hometown of Kraków. They apply to my country of birth, Poland, and they apply to every other country in Europe, and to EU. My problem is with the facet of politics that involves ingroup-outgroup mentality, appeals to emotion, following ideologies, and doing literally everything else except solving problems at hand. This is what I wanted to never see tech mixed up in.
You're very right that doing tech inherently involves a lot of moral choices about what to work on, how to work on it, and how to use the result.
Here's the thing: that "how to use the result" part means that you have to get involved in politics as known by common definition and all its mess, inefficiency, terrible campaigning, and more. It's a game of slowly moving things by inches (not to say that radical thinkers and politicians don't have their effects, but rather they help pull towards a side).
You clearly care about the morality and would want to have political action based off it (in so that it was effective, etc). So given that, why is time spent on changing political mechanisms and enacting change using new technology any less important than the tech itself? In fact, why isn't it more important than the tech? I'm not trying to make the case for one side here, but more tease out that no matter the sad state of politics everywhere right now, it's still crucial to taking the tools to have any effect.
I can't say I know the specific path to change, but I think it's important we value the problem and not dismiss politics as a whole. I personally am interested and have stuff on my reading list for the role of technocratic government setups over democratic decisions for certain fields/areas of government like infrastructure. If you work and discuss ways to fix a political system you do a lot more than trying to stay out - who are you then leaving all those decisions to?
Going back to the original thread, you said this:
> I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally
If you ignore the political side, it doesn't matter if you invent the cure for cancer if all the politicians decide to burn your paper upon reading it.
I think you can avoid involvement with the common-definition politics to a large extent, and this is in fact a part of a change being effective. I see the political world as molasses; you stick your hand too far into it, and you won't get out. You (should) want people to have a say in how the new tech impacts their lives, but you probably don't want to get sucked into partisanship and endless bickering about political ideologies. It's a waste of time that doesn't help anyone (except the print & media business).
I can't remember who said it, but I read once that developing technology is about giving politicians more options. The complicated incentive systems governing modern politics may not allow the rulers to solve some problem right now, but if you give them more options, then maybe one of them can be used. E.g. with climate change, there's no way politicians will just shut down coal plants and build nuclear ones instead. But dropping prices of renewables give them an option to achieve the same end goal more gradually.
Ultimately, my (current, always subject to change) view is that if you want to help effectively, you need to avoid touching the dysfunctional parts of modern politics as much as possible, lest they suck you in.
That makes sense, can completely see that perspective. I think at this point it's more just semantics that I'm saying the thought and choices given to what tech you work on to "give more options" is a political and moral decision, one many engineers ignore. When I hear someone in tech say "they want to stay out of politics, I think often they use it as a way to avoid those problems. Thanks for the in-depth conversation here!
