Bonum Certa Men Certa

Technology: rights or responsibilities? - Part VIII

posted by Rianne Schestowitz on Nov 24, 2024,
updated Nov 24, 2024

By Dr. Andy Farnell

Back to Part I

Back to Part II

Back to Part III

Back to Part IV

Back to Part V

Back to Part VI

Back to Part VII

What is responsibility?

Continuing this series on technology, rights and responsibilities, I want to look closer at the idea of "responsibility".

The contemporary philosopher Byung-Chul Han says;

"Today, all time-consuming practices, such as trust, loyalty, commitment and responsibility, are disappearing." – Byung-Chul Han

I've been out looking for them. Usually I start by asking a half-dozen people what they think some concept means. With "rights" you can hardly shut folk up once they start thinking and talking. With "responsibility" I mostly got silence and a bewildered, blinking expression. Some even told me they were "not comfortable" with the idea of responsibility. And not just young people, but those my own age seemed quite taken aback at the question. It seems we live in an age not just where responsibility is a thin concept but where irresponsibility is positively celebrated.

responsibility

I'm not the only one. The UK government very politely asked Elon Musk to explain his stance on free speech versus violent incitement, and he responded like a petulant teenager who was asked to clean up his room. He took any challenge to doing whatever he likes (and calling that "progress") as a personal "threat". Any psychologists reading will recognise the dire signals. "Responsibility" requires us to put our ego aside and genuinely think of others. It requires a degree of empathy and inter-subjectivity. It requires the Kantian morality rooted in the biblical (and universal religious) Golden Rule, of asking; "Would I like others to treat me this way?". In the context of digital technology however, we can hardly blame Musk. He merely continues a tradition of entitlement started in the US some half a century ago. Silicon Valley has always used the world's network as its own personal laboratory petri dish to experiment with social control in what is really a continuation by other means of COINTELPRO. "Social Networks" are the sanitised and 'acceptable' form.

Social Networks

Responsibility is "time consuming"? There is more to it. To the ideological capitalist (believer in the time-money continuum) it is therefore also "money consuming" and so "inefficient". It's "inconvenient", and for a certain segment of Western society today, mild inconvenience is the worst imaginable thing that can happen to them.

For many, "freedom" is freedom from responsibility. Push people enough and they'll come up with a few suggestions (in rough order of frequency):

When stuck, I often turn to Wordnet and linguistic databases to situate a word or concept. Here we find that "responsibility" (in noun form within its verb tree with respect to "giving", "taking" or "assuming") is primarily a human attribute or personality trait of 'good character' or virtue. It applies to a domain or province of things of import - to care and to have accountability over that domain. As a bare noun it is the object or thing for which one is responsible.

Looking to philosophy, as with rights, we find a partition of moral versus legal responsibility which strengthens our intuition that all rights have corresponding responsibilities. We ask what it means to be responsible, and what is a person responsible for? Many important writings on responsibility address that second aspect from the perspective of Law. It is a comparatively modern term (18th century) that covers political, social and moral ground. In the 19th and 20th century the tone shifts from collective responsibility to individual questions of free will, blame and accountability. Enough etymology.

philosophy

Responsibility is often in opposition to immediate self advancement. It is often cast as a "burden" or "yoke" that must be borne for some later, greater benefit. Again, this is where responsibility goes against the short-termism of contemporary capitalism and child-like inability to defer gratification (convenience). It is the virtue of a mature intelligence that can see ahead, plan, sacrifice tactically for the strategic win. This makes responsibility perfectly compatible with a Utilitarian ethic, if one is able to put short term personal gain aside.

Confusion with adjacent ideas like "duty" and "obligation" abound. An objection I got from other hackers is that talking of technological responsibility feels too much like collectivism or some kind of totalitarian social pressure. In my mind it evokes the opposite; taking responsibility is uniquely self-empowering. I also heard that it felt like experiencing blame. So, we can not ignore that digital technology is steeped in Libertarian and Anarchistic values which must be unpicked and addressed, and that it exists within the Anthropocene milieu of guilt that makes many people decidedly prickly about any perceived accusation.

Richard Stallman was quick to point out to me that he feels it's unfair and no fault of Software Freedom activists to have society's failure to avoid dystopian technofascism pinned on them. Software Freedom is just one small effort which opens the door and allows the possibility of responsible technology. It does not promise or ensure anything unless we walk through that door and seize technological responsibility.

activism

Importantly, the idea of social responsibility is that everyone must fulfil their civic duties. This makes most sense to me as a proponent of civic cybersecurity. But what is civic duty? For this I return to the Greeks and fundamental notions of the Demos and Polis. It is our obligation to the Polis. Individuals can discharge social responsibility even when that goes against norms, laws and opinions of everybody else. Social responsibility sits above democracy in this way. In other words, sometimes you have to just do the right thing because it is the right thing (in a Kantian sense) even (maybe especially) where the crowd or ersatz "leaders" are woefully wrong.

leaders

During an interview with Christian Have recently, ex-head of cyber at the Danish police and intelligence agency, we found a strong resonance around the idea of alienation as modern Cassandras. Those who think about European and British security increasingly find ourselves in a similar role to "climate activists 40 years ago". There are so many reasons why the world will not, or can not hear our words. They are the same reasons that Truman Smith and Dorothy Thompson struggled with their message. Responsibility here, as it was for climate scientists in the half-century between 1950 - 2000, is to doggedly persist against the grain and against accusations of "alarmism".

At some point the "narrative flips" and there's a cascade of opinion change. In reality people's opinions have not changed, but they gained confidence to express what they really think. As with child abuse scandals like in churches, or with Jimmy Savile, or sexual predators as in the Mohamed Al Fayed case, all of the victims are party to a spiral of silence. Each thinks that they are unique and everyone else is 'normal' and so they are gas-lighted by Asche conformity which undermines their confidence to "speak out".

normal

At some point enough people are ready to openly complain, a tipping point is passed and, like a flock of birds taking off, the entire group flip. Something like this is now happening in tech. The mood has changed. Prominent figures in computer security and even the US government have openly said "Big-Tech is the cybersecurity problem". The Russians? The Chinese? The North Koreans? Yes, partly, but all enabled by our own shitty half-baked corporate technology that is intrusive and unfit for purpose. This can no longer be ignored. We've endured 20 or more years of putting massive individual profit before security, dignity and humanity, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Big-tech betrayed Western values.

But my point here is that this is not responsibility. It is following the herd. If everybody leaves "X-formerly-known-as-twitter" and Facebook to jump on the latest "BlueSky" or whatever, nothing will change. Only if the new communications platforms become radical forums for the debate on technology and responsibility will there be hope. Otherwise, whatever replaces Zuck and Musk will become the same enshitified mess.

It matters little that computer scientists find ourselves in this bind today. We are few. Our voices are easily drowned by less technical but ambitious people who whip up the world into frenzied infomaniacs. Unless the cause of responsible technology use is taken up by ordinary users of tech, we are sunk. Looking at India, China and North Korea today it feels our wish to see technology enable democracy rather than fascism sits on a knife-edge.

While the law also recognises a domain of "corporate responsibility" I personally think the whole conceit is a joke. At best it's a set of vacuous euphemisms to, as Orwell would say, "make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

As individuals with power, as CEOs, CTOs, CISOs and thought leaders we can bring our personal morals to work. We can even go against boards, shareholders, marketing people and choose to put profit in second place. We can take a humane stand against weak conceits like "efficiency" and "convenience". But an organisation is incapable of responsibility. The analogy of an organisation as a mind-writ-large only stretches so far. A commercial organism has no amygdala. It fears no meaningful consequences. There is no corporate death penalty and fines. no matter how large, are merely rows in the accounting spreadsheet.

This was where I think Ian Levy erred in his brilliant talk at Cambridge. Despite technical savvy, admirable honesty and, like Ross Anderson, a talent for decapitating bullshit with the ninja spinning-backick of Science!!, I think he showed a psychological blindspot when suggesting that somehow we could use shame as a way to steer companies toward better civic cybersecurity. It is clear to me that enshitified hyper-capitalist monopoly tech companies have no capacity for "shame". That is what people mean when they liken corporations to psychopaths. It's not some empty "lefty" trope.

shame

Groups and organisations have no essential feelings. Indeed they act to suppress feeling. That is a very dangerous problem that we have not really visited since Nuremburg at the end of the 1940s. Organisations provide a justification framework for all sorts of immorality and are rarely capable of introspection. Institutional self-reflection invariably ends with whitewashing, for example; the Jean Charles de Menezes case, or well meaning but ineffective recommendations (Macpherson report). Look at the dire consequences for those who let the Solarwinds and Crowdstrike IT catastophes happen…. {tumbleweeds}.

To take things seriously we must be able to feel certain things, and for this central reason no "AI" can ever be responsible. As Sherry Turkle points out, "AI" can never care no matter how cleverly it is made to simulate that. It does not take a cynic to note that the corporate mission embraces "AI" so eagerly not because it yields labour efficiency but because it offers moral armour. Decisions made by non-persons are one more layer of misdirection away from the corporate barbican toward the walls and portcullis. For the same reason autonomous weapons are a get-out from the responsibility not merely to win at war, but to fight well.

Can human society develop and progress with responsibility? Musk, Zuckerberg and the Silicon Valley 'bro' culture have been leading us in the opposite direction for a long time now.

The tragedy of our time is not hate. Hate is weak. It is merely corrupted love. Indeed love and hate are close companions. Our terrible enemy is indifference. Technologically magnified and sustained indifference is the product of "AI" and "algorithms" (a sad debasement of the actual computer-science meaning) which displace real experience, expertise and judgement with superficial slop and half-baked expedient heuristics.

indifference

The important emotions for human progress at the present time lie in a complex cluster encompassing designators like; honour, guilt, shame, embarrassment, love, and pride. But we have to look to individuals for that.

We must:

So, consider the examples of paying taxes and voting. Many people resent paying taxes or voting, even though they are party to a social contract and enjoy the fruits of a prosperous and peaceful society. But to take responsibility for doing something, even though you don't want to, and even though it seems against your immediate self-interest, even though it makes you angry to do so because some of your taxes will always be spent unjustly, is the high bar we must aim to jump. That is responsibility.

Most of us find it easier to fall back on claiming compulsion. If you pay taxes only because you fear the violence of government, that is not really "taking responsibility", it is capitulating. Voting invokes responsibility too. For many traditional minorities, women or blacks, it invokes honour. It is an insult to those who fought for democracy to abstain. Responsibility and respect for others are thus intimately bound.

We encounter similar dynamics around technology. We refuse to take tecnological responsibility because we can claim "compulsion". We pretend "there is no choice". If you don't commit some expedient act that you know is wrong, then "someone else will", or you will "be left behind" (in the race toward indignity).

We capitulate easily to the network effect that says; to participate in a modern society and be 'normal' and connected to friends we must give up on all morality and principles. That is the "price" we must pay for the fruits of modern "convenience". Even though we now fully understand that many of the things we're building will hasten ecological collapse, exacerbate inequality, and feed fascism, we fail to take the leap of responsibility to ourselves and our children.

convenience

Cory Doctorow describes this stuckness as having our "love leveraged against us". It is in fact an ancient trick known as blutkitt in which we are bonded to a malign or abusive identity by the shame of leaving and therefore betraying a common inadequacy, disgrace or guilt. We're "all in this mess together".

We stay glued to banks, insurance companies and IT providers not just, as is commony held, because of rational "switching costs", but because of misplaced loyalty that has a mechanism more akin to Stockholm syndrome.

Social media makes us feel disgust at ourselves, yet it keeps us pinned down under the gaze of the others. Alcoholics will recognise the intense peer pressure of drinking buddies who collude to excuse one another. The paradoxical escape is to take the road less travelled and realise that sometimes the greatest act of love is to walk away from what you desire, or what you believe other people think you should do.

Moral purpose cannot be found within an organisation. So-called "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) is a sham of greenwashing, paying out "charitable conscience money", gender-washing, and other moral theatre. Besides, political scientist Wendy Brown sets out how "corporations" no longer exist as such, since global financialism has abstracted them into mere symbols of exchange for the stock market whose entire value boils down to "reputation" (PR and deception).

So responsibility is something that falls to us all as individuals, as actors with actual moral capacity, or to small groups dedicated to action.

moral capacity

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." – Margaret Mead

In a world of systematic organisational failure the term "activists" has really become a synonym for those who step-up to the challenge of responsibility where the competence of those formally charged with some duty fails. Often the situation demands that they are "outsiders", for example Medecins Sans Frontiers or International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement work where no recognised goverment body can operate disinterestedly. I believe this is now the situation for civic cybersecurity, where no body yet exists to offer digital security against the BigTech-State alliances forming in countries like India, China, and now the USA.

We asked the question "What are people responsible for?" and that leads to the question "How are people responsible for technology?". We do not have space here to explore the whole of Heidegger, Mumford, and Postman, but suffice it to say that "technology" fulfils many functions other than simple utility. Our relationship with it is social, moral and spiritual. It shapes how we see the world. It is part of our self development and our ability to help others grow and develop. Technology belongs to the people and is an intrinsic part of human life. It cannot be factored out, separated-off or delegated to mere "industry".

This "oneness with technology" is an argument widely held in anthropological theories. Humans co-exist with technology to the degree that we are technology. Therefore, to fail to take responsibility for technology is to fail to take responsibility for ourselves. This is where our thinking radically departs from the technological determinists like Veblen and their pessimistic disciples like Kaczynski for whom technology was an irresistible external force to blindly submit to or reject in favour of primitivism.

Basically, this is where we've gone badly wrong with technology. We've stumbled into a state where we see technology as "other", as "not ours". It has become a cargo cult of mystery and magic that giant god-like powers deign to throw a few crumbs beneath their banquet table. This is not merely an inequity of wealth, or even power, but a fully schizophrenic split for humanity.

other

The more we cry for "rights" to this or that technology the happier that makes power, because power profits from the relational asymmetry in which it gets to "give" (and define) technology. This is the essence of Modi's flavour of techno-authoritarianism seen in India. So then, we have a responsibility to technology above and beyond any parochial sources of technology. Just as we are "forced to be free" we are forced to take responsibility for technology to stop it being weaponised against us.

In a world where technology has been hijacked to leverage our love, care and socialbility against each other, then ironically responsibiilty - to the extent that it is going against immediate self-interests - compels us to take "anti-social" actions. Quitting Facebook or Linked-in or Twitter (currently known as X) is not a challenge to take despite it alienating friends, but because it alienates those freinds. It alienates them from harms by subtracting some small value (of yourself) from the network. Even if they misunderstand it, it is a powerful expression of love toward them. Taking responsibility is doing the one thing that you can do, but which others cannot. It is "From each according to his ability…". To be able to help others, perhaps leading by example in a way that they cannot see, is something to be proud of. Leaving Big-Tech social media and enshitified tech is something to do because you love your friends and want better for them too, so you quitting means that they don't have to make the hard decision". I think that tipping point has happened with X-formally-known-as-twitter, Facebook/Threads and the other horrible Internet prisons run by sad little Tech-bro oiks. It's the responsible "sacrifice" to make.

sacrifice

Other Recent Techrights' Posts

Red Hat: Thank You, Microsoft. Here's Your Paid-for Puff Pieces From Our Media Partner!
Sort of like "money laundering" (or funnelling of bribes) for bribed "journalists"
Links 13/12/2024: Military Buildup Around Taiwan, More Health Problems Associated With Social Control Media Illuminated
Links for the day
 
Links 14/12/2024: Adobe's Shares Collapse, Apple Publishes Fake News With LLMs
Links for the day
Links 14/12/2024: ChatGPT Down, Microsofter Bracing for Layoffs
Links for the day
Gemini Links 13/12/2024: Firing at Work, jujutsu, and Gemini Mode
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 13, 2024
IRC logs for Friday, December 13, 2024
Links 13/12/2024: British Journalism Awards and Censorship by Copyright Misuse
Links for the day
Gemini Links 13/12/2024: "Virtue Signaling", Gopher, HTML and the 90s Web Aesthetic
Links for the day
Maybe - and Hopefully - More News Sites Will Go "Static" (More New Material Published But Established Pages Served Directly From the File System)
Keeping things simple and light is important for the sake of scaling
[Meme] Vendor Capture for 'Civility's Sake'
"I CoCed him already"
[Teaser] The EPO is Still Calling Monopolies "Products"
Coming soon
Anonymity for Sources
At the moment we can learn about stories in person or in encrypted voice chat
What Topics We Prioritise
On fishing for topics to cover
Why We Cover the Topics That We've Long Focused on (by Choice)
We'll continue to cover suppressed issues because such issues are usually obstructed
[Meme] The Reasonable Man
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world"
Oligarch-Owned Media Twists the Narrative and Demands More Surveillance
Corruption is the real issue here
Windows Falls to Single-Digit "Market Share" in Benin
Windows has fallen even further
[Meme] Doing Online Activism in Social Control Media
Dictators have always loved lists
Gemini Links 13/12/2024: Creative Moods, Berkeley DB, and More
Links for the day
Microsoft Windows Falls to New All-Time Low in Guatemala (Less Than a Quarter)
When it comes to operating systems, we don't think we've mentioned it before
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 12, 2024
IRC logs for Thursday, December 12, 2024
[Meme] Leave My /home Alone
A new version of Systemd
There's a New Version of Lagrange (Gemini Reader) and Its Developer is Making an IDE/Editor
I share or reciprocate almost anything I can through Gemini Protocol
International Troll Alert by Helen Plews
Helen Plews from Cybershow has this new article
Nick's Job at OSI: Promote Microsoft, Promote Proprietary Software
This is what Microsoft pays him to do
[Meme] Award-Winning Back-stabbing Opportunists
part of the rebel alliance
The FSF (Free Software Foundation, Inc.) Can Reach Its Funding Goal of $400,000. This Bothers the Imposters and Foes of the FSF.
Software Freedom is something we must perpetually fight for
Azerbaijan Rejects Microsoft
Azerbaijan seems to have very little interest in Microsoft
Linux Foundation Pays for LLM Slop (Puff Pieces Made by Bots) About the Linux Foundation
The so-called Linux Foundation is responsible for the production of spam and slop
[Meme] You Just Grab Him by the CoC
Sponsors of Python Software Foundation... "You don't like Python's corporate sponsor?"
Explaining What Deb Nicholson Does to the Python Software Foundation
Of course the OSI, which Nicholson also occupied, still helps Microsoft attack copyleft
IBM Said to Be Firing People Days Before Christmas
IBM is entering taboo territories
Microsoft Falls to Just 11% in Ivory Coast
Microsoft tried hard to catch up in mobile
General Consultative Committee (GCC) Meeting at the European Patent Office (EPO) Shows Existing Problems
the "real problems" and why "digitalisation" doesn't solve them
Links 12/12/2024: Shell Settles With Greenpeace, DOJ Whistleblower Pilot Program
Links for the day
Gemini Links 12/12/2024: AuraGem TV and Advent of Code 2024
Links for the day
Fake "Linux" News, Produced by Microsoft Chatbots in 'Brittany Day' or "LinuxSecurity" Clothing
She's back at it
Microsoft OSI Promoting GitHub, Which is Proprietary and a Massive GPL Violator
OSI works for Microsoft, speaks for Microsoft, promotes proprietary software
Links 12/12/2024: Another 'Self-driving' Cars Dead End, Infowars Sale Blocked by Court
Links for the day
Links 12/12/2024: "Hey Hi" Hype Debunked, ActivityPub and Gemini Software on Same Server
Links for the day
Google Has Only Solidified Its Search Monopoly in Africa Since Microsoft's Chatbot/LLM Hype Started
Africa is basically a "Failed Market" to Microsoft
[Teaser] EPO is Running Out of Brains
EPO has been in the business of offering fake patents
South Korea Has Its Own Alternative to IBM's Proprietary RHEL
Owing to the Open Enterprise Linux Association (OpenELA)
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 11, 2024
IRC logs for Wednesday, December 11, 2024