Consider: Trump's campaign relying so heavily on social media; social media as a recruiting and organizational tools for extremist organizations; the issue of fake news sites; the role tech plays in enabling/accelerating globalization; tech as integral to global surveillance apparatuses.
> We are just as ignorant and naive as the next set of folks down the line.
Sure, averaged out over the variety of ways a person can be ignorant and naive (emotionally, financially, politically, etc). But nonetheless I think it would behoove us to stay engaged and reflective about our role in the world beyond tech, rather than saying "Nope, nothing for us to discuss, just keep laying the bricks".
> Trump's campaign relying so heavily on social media; social media as a recruiting and organizational tools for extremist organizations; the issue of fake news sites; the role tech plays in enabling/accelerating globalization; tech as integral to global surveillance apparatuses.
These are all interesting points, but I don't think they explain Trump's win. Trump's win was about a voting demographic that felt Washington, and to a lesser extent, cities generally – were out of touch with their problems and they were willing to overlook flaws that are core values for us to get there.
It was also about another voting demographic that may have been appalled at Trump on a personal level but not in a way that translated to 2008 turnout.
It was also about a political system that turned out two very disliked candidates and produced one of the most extraordinarily negative campaigns in history.
Technology played a small hand in greasing each of those, but it did not create any of them. Nor can it fix them. It is human nature, perhaps, to focus on things we can control in dire situations. As technologists, we can control technology.
But creating a webapp to combat fake news is not going to make Washington feel in touch, motivate voter turnout, or fix the primaries. It won't do anything actually, because Politifact already exists. If we want to do something, we need to do something that strikes at a real problem. Perhaps that requires technology, but what it requires more is empathy. Too many technologists and not enough empathists.
Don't get me wrong, build a webapp if that helps you. I build antisurveillance tech, it helps me. But I also know that being reactionary and clique-ey got us into this mess. It won't get us out.
And of course, demographics who had their right to vote restricted starting in 2013.
After Trump's election I came to the conclusion that I had let myself get sucked into a left-leaning filter bubble, which was why I was so surprised when Clinton lost. I realized I had no clue what really mattered to "the other half" of the country, and that terrified me. Equally terrifying was that there are (at least) two bubbles, neither of which comprehends the other, and very few central mediating platforms that connect these two worlds.
On Twitter I decided to follow Breitbart. Yes, Breitbart, the much-reviled bogey-man of the left. And yes, I find some of it objectionable. But really the surprise has been how not-totally-insane it is. It presents an alternate worldview which is in its own way coherent and (dare I say it?) legitimate. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, it doesn't matter---the point is that without bringing these separate worlds into meaningful communication, America is in for some real turmoil. And HN is part of this. It's rare for me to see things here that really challenge the mainstream narrative. It basically all confirms what I already believe. That's what drew me here in the first place, and though many of us probably like to think of ourselves as free-thinking and willing to confront contrary evidence, I'd imagine that's why many of you are here, too.
On the one hand, I get it: these are terribly subjective, more so than some Go hack, or release of a new version of Python major release.
On the other hand, a lot of the people are smart, sometimes domain experts. It's fascinating and rewarding to read a back-and-forth between two calm, but fully disagreeing individuals.
My secret wish is some sort of "HN Politics" or "HN Social" or something. The .js frameworks discussions and the weekly 'tech interview' complaints get tiring.
As a side note, I'm sure fora like that exist already... anyone care to recommend some?
You don't see economists deciding and dictating you how software should be built and what technological stack to use, presumably because they have the foresight to assume you are an expert in your field and can do so better than them.
My point is thus: leave it to the experts in their own field. The hubris required to believe that software engineers can somehow "take responsibility" overnight to create a "fair, just, open, and economically robust society" and do so better than experts, is astonishing.
This isn't directed in particular at anyone and isn't mean as an insult, but the amount of economic illiteracy here on HN is staggering, but that's not the annoying part.
The annoying part is that there is at the very least a vocal minority of software engineers who believe they have the solutions to hard problems in other fields, typically negligent of the problems and of the nuances of that field and most frequently of limitations of human nature itself.
Rightly or wrongly, many people are not pleased with this. Especially as other players have either joined in or spoken out.
Part of that game is being in the news as little as possible.
The problems are systemic. It's not Hillary or Trump.
We haven't figured out how to make mass organization work effectively.