The Taming of Tech Criticism

Highly topical criticism, such as the threat posed by wearable cameras or the revelation du jour from the surveillance apparatus, is difficult to engage because it seems shallow. Many faults seem to be presented like misdemeanors by errant entities given too long a leash, rather than the inevitable consequence of a certain philosophy and lifestyle.

It's shallow but easy to engage with, because that kind of criticism is actionable. You can ban Google Glass from your bar, or loudly demand (and perhaps even receive) substantial legislative change on some issues. But when someone tells you that this is something that started in the early 20th century and you must question the principles that have given you such conveniences as microwaves and mobile phones, not only is that criticism not actionable, it's easy to reject as merely theoretical. It's easier to feel in the right when you argue with someone claiming a century of creeping authority and technocracy, than to deny things that are manifestly true, such as the overreach that is supposedly the most recent result of that century.

But questioning the equation of progress=technology has been going on for a long time, centuries, even millennia, and you may find yourself convinced if you read Bacon, or Burton, or Plato, who said things long ago that we are still saying today. The preface to the Anatomy of Melancholy is particularly insightful and beautiful despite being some 400 years old, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the idea of what ails "modern society" - it may be the same thing that ailed it in the early 17th century.

It's disappointing that this needs to be said out loud, but I really suggest people complaining about the piece read til the end. It's fairly clearly divided into two sections. The first is a straightforward critical review of Carr's latest book which does good work exposing some of the worst examples of Carr's sloppy thinking.

In the second part, Evgeny, a self-proclaimed "technology critic" reflects on and examines his own complicity in the very type of thinking he'd previously been criticising. It's actually incredibly self-aware and insightful, both in the clarity of its self-criticism and how well it contexutalizes its arguments within the history of thought on capitalism, social organization, and technology.

I don't have any analytics on this but I'm fairly certain the reason that so many people have been sharing this recently comes from this section.

I found this pretty fascinating (something like a mix of McLuhan, Marx, and Greenberg) and the comments here incredibly inane. There IS a substantial opinion being presented here about the reticence of tech critics to observe the more fundamental socioeconomic issues underlying many problems in tech, and the fact that people are complaining about $.50 words here would provide enough ironic fodder for even the shittiest tech critics.

I can't believe how many words were used in this article to convey such little substance. Does the author know anything other than 50 cent words, or is this style supposed to mean it's an intellectual piece?

Not that I'm anti-vocabulary, I was recently reading Denial of Death (Becker) which was very dense, but every sentence was justified in understanding the message.

Speaking of message, what were the key takeaways? Best I could tell it was something vague about the best strategies for attacking people who think technology has something positive to offer society.

So the Baffler is joining me in full-blooded accelerationism?