Digital Moderation and How To Decline a Technology - DBR 084

I'm going to dive into the logic of the debate around technology.   Purpose: To earn a stronger hearing for honest critiques of technology: We'll discuss a common pattern where critics are dismissed as "anti-technology" or "Luddites".   What's in it for you: To be encouraged and equipped to question the rhetoric that faces us from a technology-forward culture. And/or answer the question: "You don't use social media X, what's wrong with you?" And/or generate the courage to shut something down, like Cal Newport suggests in Digital Minimalism. And/or, if you're a boss and are wondering how to improve your organization's productivity, consider similar arguments in Cal's A World Without Email.   My claim for the next 45 minutes… I am a critic of certain kinds of technology. I and others who do this often face a particular kind of counter argument. This typical counter-argument pattern equates general use with harmlessness. I'll show that this general use argument is not well-supported with evidence. By highlighting how past critiques, like those of television, have been "vindicated," I'll establish the validity and necessity of such discussions. Introduction to critiquing technology and my position My background and motivation for critique Examples of technology I think are challenging The Common Pattern of Argument Against Technology Critics Stereotype of critics: Often labeled "anti-technology" or implying a lack of understanding The counter-argument pattern Premise: A new technology (X) is critiqued (e.g., Facebook is a problem). 2. Counter-claim: People previously critiqued a di erent new technology (Y), and those past critics "were demonstrated to be wrong" because Y is now in general use and "didn't kill us". Challenge to Critic: The critic is then asked to prove why technology X is "worse than" technology Y. * The speaker notes the di iculty of comparing disparate technologies like Facebook and television (e.g., weak comparison points like "looking at screens" or "consuming attention"). Dismissal: If the critic cannot prove X is "worse," they are dismissed as a "Chicken Little" or an "old curmudgeon" interfering with enjoyment. Historical example: "Go-to statement" in early programming languages Initially debated as "useful in the hands of a knowledgeable user". Now universally agreed to be bad programming practice because it produced buggy, hard to maintain, and clumsy code.. This pattern often appears in discussions where convenience is the primary perceived benefit of a technology. Flaws in the Counter-Critique's Logic Lack of Burden of Proof on the counter-critic False Equivalence: General use does not imply harmlessness Television as a Case Study: Vindication of Early Critiques Early critics of television have been vindicated, though this isn't widely recognized. Three primary critiques of television Critique 1: Content Quality Critique 2: Waste of Time/Attention Critique 3: Advertising as Brainwashing/Propaganda Recap