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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but everything can become anything with enough effort. Everything can be violence too for example. Everything can be nothing. Everything can be food (at least once).

Maybe, but politics even stretches to thoughts and constructs. "Ideas" and "Hope" are politics.

Those cannot become food in a physical sense.

"Politic" is in itself a construct. Not something physical.

Doesn't change that something can be created without political intention, thought etc, no different than a sad poem written wasn't created with nihilistic purposes even though it could possibly be applied to nihilism.

Right, things can be created without thinking of politics or with a political intention/motivation, as I said, but they still be political.

Politics is everything where some kind of discourse or debate happens, where something can be judged and assessed, about how power should be handled and influenced.

At that point, it's you that's making something political, not the thing itself being political.

Well, I don't think you can "make something political", everything that exists can be perceived and analyzed from different perspectives, one of which is its impact on the society, which is a political viewpoint. And pointing that perspective out to others is not "making it political". It is about pointing out and making aware of an attribute that thing already has, wherever it was intended by the creator or not.

Wherever that raised a valid concern, is correct, or noteworthy is another topic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, I don't think you can "make something political", everything that exists can be perceived and analyzed from different perspectives, one of which is its impact on the society, which is a political viewpoint.

Hence, you are making it political. Like you yourself said, politics in itself a construct, not a natural force.

The problem with taking the "everything is political" approach to things in life is that, much like physical reality, you end up diluting the impact something has.

If you spend energy is on making things that were not intended to be political and don't bring significant harm by existing, you detract from things that were intentionally created to be political and do bring harm.

Instead of say debating if a browser has gendered pronouns that time was used protesting against bigots who went to actually remove gender rights, the world would be a better place. Because time is finite, and few have the patience of philosophers to ponder rhetorical orbs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Hence, you are making it political. Like you yourself said, politics in itself a construct, not a natural force.

Wherever something is or isn't political is decided by the society, all I can do is point out potential issues, but that is not "making it political", just like pointing to something that is dead, doesn't suddenly makes it die. No it was dead before.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah but see, politics much like the idea of death itself is still just philosophy. For some humans, the perishing of the body isn't necessarily death either. Disagreement can be found where it can be made

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Exactly.

All I can point out that I don't see the a body moving, not breathing, no pulse and not reacting to external stimuli, all facts, but wherever or not this state is called "dead", I can decide for myself, and groups of people will have a final say on. Other groups might disagree, politics might be involved, maybe the issue will be settled, maybe not. I, as an individual cannot say how the outcome will be.