Glen -
Technology encourages the concentration of control in the same way that
it encourages the concentration of wealth.
I agree that this *can* happen and often *does* happen. I'd be
interested in a broader discussion of the mechanisms. The "simple"
answers seem obvious to me, but I suspect there are more subtle/complex
ones?
Well, I don't know how subtle it is. But it seems to me that the trend
of "steadily giving up our privacy via technology" isn't at all a
conscious act. People simply didn't/don't think very hard about what
they're giving up when they, e.g., upload pictures of their food or
retweet tweets from @anonymous (or whoever). I often argue that more
ubiquitous technology like mortgage loans systemically centralize power
into the hands of the people who understand how mortgages work. Even
the people growing in power (loan officers, real estate agents, etc.)
usually don't realize that the technology is what gives them their
power, much less that the power is being concentrated into them.
A penetrating analysis as always... I *do* agree intuitively with
this, but I'm still noodling on just what the mechanisms are. My own
"glib" answer would be something about a ratchet mechanism... that the
technology has a tendency to make sure that "those who understand it
systematically" tend to "always" benefit from it while those who don't
understand it or understand it casually tend to lose over the long run.
Advantages gained by the system tend to "hold" shile advantages gained
by the individual tend to be isolated and transitory? One way of
explaining it might be a little like the "house advantage" in casinos
and the additional "hidden" advantage of deep pockets? Even in a "fair'
game of chance, the random walk of the individuals pile of chips will
eventually walk them into bankruptcy while the casino can't be
bankrupted (without orders of magnitude longer walks)?
Another point is highlighted by the article Owen posted. The mere
concept that Google, Apple, or Microsoft might be _defending_ us vassals
from the government by publishing the government requests for data is
laughable ... to me. But I am often wrong. And I know lots of people
who are implicitly pro-corporation. They're loyalty runs very deep to
some corporations or their "faces" in the sense of a brand. "Great
taste! No! Less filling!" comes to mind. Or the provincial loyalty to
Ford vs. Chevy or Coke vs. Pepsi. The process grows more complex with
"green" or non-GMO food labeling, or charity-based corporations like
neuman's own or ben & jerry's and ideology-proximal corporations like
credo or progressive insurance. This "corporations vs. the government"
vibe is great for stoking those old brand loyalties. But all it really
does (I think) is concentrate power into the hands of the corporations.
And since there's only the thinnest veil between corporations and
government, it brings us closer to fascism.
I think (also) of this game as some combination of being shaken down by
two bullies who pretend not to know or like eachother and a "good
cop/bad cop" game.
Yes, I just asserted that if you claim to like Miller better than
Budweiser, or vice versa, then you support a fascist government. ;-) I
have to go to great extents to keep my non-sequitur master
certification. The only way out is to claim both are garbage beer and
head over to 2nd Street for some real beer.
Done!
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
