I'm a Luddite. You should be one too

I actually think it's a good idea to bring focus on Luddism. The core issue is the difference between technology and industrialism.

As the author points out, the Luddites were not opposed to novelty or technology itself. What they were opposing was the industrial mode of production that they perceived as inhuman and exploitative, and destroying particular tools was a tactical measure to stop that process.

A while ago I stumbled over one of George Hotz's blog posts about this which I think fits the discussion.[1]. I don't think we differentiate enough between technology in itself and how it is used within our economic systems, and how that's not the same thing, instead we just have this vague Whig history style narrative of 'progress'. That corporate-PR Accenture quote in OPs article is painful.

[1]https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2021/01/18/techn...

One thing that I have realized as I grow to know more about technology and society, the less I like either.

There are still opportunities for "good" technology that doesn't spy or take advantage of you, but what are the odds we use it instead of the next shiny FAANG SPA that vacuums up data, hogs RAM, and is dependent on remote services not screwing you over?

I have to agree with the OP. We need more Luddites, not less.

I still don't consider myself a luddite after reading this. It's thought provoking but neo-luddism has stronger ties to the anti-science movement than the author probably wishes.

From my understanding, neo-luddism doesn't separate the technology from who's using it. Social media has created a kind of communication that was once thought science fiction, I can have a meaningful conversation with a few hundred people reading my message without ever learning who I am.

That kind of tool for communication is naturally exploited by big companies but at the same time you see things like addiction recovery forums that overall are a positive good for society. The creation and iteration of these tools move too fast for society/government to meaningfully have had a discussion about it.

The author seems to be implying that a luddite today looks closer to the kind of people that join anonymous and are against mega-corporations. I think that's no longer related to technology. That's a view of requiring stronger government oversight of how tech oligopolies operate, but the reality is that it's not just tech companies that use these tools to paint a narrative.

The only way to fight that kind of control is to understand the technology yourself. I support the message but I don't believe it's a discussion about technology and so I don't consider myself a luddite or neo-luddite.

The wikipedia article about neo-luddism also paints a pretty different picture of what it is compared to what the author writes. However it seems that there isn't a strong message of what neo-luddism is yet in general and is still being developed as a philosophy.