Opensource

1533 readers

36 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

pylapp

Is software political? (www.jstor.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/opensource

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In this paper the author highlights how both engineers and social scientists misinterpret the relationship between technology and society. In particular he attacks the narrative, widespread among engineers, that technological artifacts, such as software, have no political properties in themselves and that function or efficiency are the only drivers of technological design and implementation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] refalo -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I would consider what's going on here is literally the definition of failure to communicate as humans because many here cannot agree on terminology. Either someone has to change or we have to make a compromise, or agree to disagree. Otherwise the arguing never stops.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would consider what's going on here is literally the definition of failure to communicate as humans because many here *cannot* agree on terminology

Okay, so you are acknowledging that an agreement on terminology and a shared understanding of it needs to occur for successful communication to happen. In other words, that terms need to be intersubjective if we want to have any chance at communicating at all.

This is exactly the point I was making above.

If you think a shared understanding is vital for successful communication, how do you square that of with your claims that having your own subjective definition of politics is perfectly reasonable and acceptable and there's nothing we can or need to do about it?

Working with your own definitions and not trying to come to a shared one is by your own admission a failure to communicate. So why do you then insist on just claiming a term is completely subjective instead of at least trying to offer a term that can be agreed upon. Why do you insist on communicating in a way that by your own admission is bound to lead to communication breakdown?

[–] refalo 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's simply not possible to communicate effectively with everyone. Sometimes you have to choose your battles.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Ok, choose your battle then.

Is it your intention to communicate effectively with me in this conversation or is it not?

[–] Kissaki 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Seeing the thread has come to an end;

You argued very well!

[–] refalo -1 points 5 months ago

I think I've said my thoughts on this matter and there's really nothing else I wish to discuss about it anymore.