I tend to agree with the article (haven’t read the full paper)
You could even argue that one’s interactions with technology forming such a large part of one’s life creates a new dimension of class divide based on wealth and technical literacy.
You have the upper class, rich enough to be the ones earning money off the technology-powered exploitation of everyone else, and using those same riches to simply bypass negative societal consequences that come as a result. A lot of the worst excesses of automation capitalism simply don’t concern them - e.g. one-way-video robot job interviews.
Then you have a middle class of technologically savvy people. Still working class, still wageslaves, but their tech literacy allows them to escape and avoid some aspects of the dystopia, from ads to privacy invasions by large corps. They can maybe spot dark patterns, and have the piracy know-how to save money on anything digital, which lets them spend more on carving out a sane space in the world.
Using alternative social media they somewhat skirt enshittification. Using those tech skills maybe they work a comfy remote job, saving on transport, maybe they don’t work much, and know how to build a mouse jiggler. They know how to spot crappy goods online and don’t fall for scams (e.g. not buying anything on temu, knowing not to buy furniture on amazon). However there is sometimes no way around things, such as the job interview example given in 1 or the high-stakes algorithms run by banks, police etc.
They also can’t stop talking about something called “Jellyfin” and how “guhnoo plus Linux” should be used because it’s “foss”. Their position is tenuous, but their quality of life is better than:
The lower class. Without the tech literacy, resources, time or energy to learn, nor the wealth to bypass it, they face the full brunt of all of the worst aspects of technology. On top of all the abovementioned examples, they are barraged with endless ads with no respite, they pretty much cannot enjoy anything without an ad, or selling their data, usually alongside also paying for content.
A fun movie night with friends turns to uncomfortable silence and communal suffering through endless ads, the next day they wake up with a subscription charge they don’t remember - a dark pattern on their smart TV they accidentally clicked when the thing was frozen. Now they don’t have money to repair their car.
They’ve also been misidentified by face recognition CCTV while commuting and need to go to court to dispute a fine.
All that micro-suffering, like tiny pin pricks, the sheer pace of oppression is so fast it’s impossible for them to even untangle it to individual elements, how would just blocking ads solve anything? They barely even distinguish ads from the content that once brought them genuine escape and joy.
The middle class breathlessly explaining them how to make things better just rings like a reminder of the brutal pointlessness of that suffering, and that can’t be, so they don’t listen.
They just want to live normally, they don’t care about computers, they don’t want to be in an eternal fight for scraps of sanity with big tech, and that’s understandable, but for them - unfortunate.
- Inner party members can turn off the telescreen. The Winston Smith officedrones suffer but can manage. The proles are screwed but apolitical and have no way to resist.
Lol
Be crazy if this comment was ai
This sort of OG analysis would not pass the filters our dearest elites apply to the LLMs…
Read that entire thing until you understand what the person said… This is the beginning and that’s your warning.
This was both bad and good to read. Kudos.
You could even argue that one’s interactions with technology forming such a large part of one’s life creates a new dimension of class divide based on wealth and technical literacy.
Gave me strange associations with discussions about charity and social security under ancap.
Wide masses voting for more social security are naturally not possible there. Wide masses forcing it via threat of violence are supposed to be countered with automated turrets and barbed wire and drones.
But - in an ancap society those better off are interested in there being more people able to sustain themselves. The benefit is a bit like with having more children, only helping others is cheaper and easier.
And then I’ve recently read about an ancap project (calling it a commune would be weird) which ended up, eh, pretty much like a commune with everyone helping newbies.
And then I remember my childhood with various online games, the economies of which, again, were pretty … not even ancap, just Hobbesian. And there basically if a developed\experienced player saw a newbie, they’d immediately ask if something is needed, give buffs, advice, resources, items. Protect those weaker etc. Even in Travian, even not being in the same alliance. Just because.
But this even makes sense power-wise. It’s in everyone’s interest to create power around themselves.
A lot of our discourses are distorted by efforts to demonize human horizontal voluntary interactions. That is because horizontal interactions don’t imply imbalance in dignity and allow to bypass chokepoints and death grounds - like centralized platforms and bent laws.
Almost like it becomes a kind of anarcho-communism instead :)
If you’d like, there is a book from that perspective on voluntary horizontal human interactions, especially when it comes to helping others by Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. It’s one of foundational anarchist texts, in my opinion.
Mostly ancaps won’t argue that a valid ancom commune is valid ancap, but will argue against any valid ancap community being valid ancom, my thought was that in reality a stable ancap community will still likely be valid ancom.
I’ve tried reading this long ago, will try again (ADHD).
Calling human review of digital communication instead of shitty algorithms “analogue” is abusing the absolute hell out of the term.
