Came here to say this. I will never be compelled to install an app on my phone by an eatery the first time I go there. That is severely hostile design. Don’t willingly inconvenience yourself just to freely provide them your tracking info to sell.

Or.. ask the staff for a menu, order with them, respectfully let them know how you feel about the qr/app thing (unlikely it was their decision to implement but they can pass on the complaint), and if they're unwilling to take your order (which is hopefully unlikely at this point) feel free to make a little stink (if you feel inclined) and walk out. Still ok to complain on your blog about being spammed with the app but I'd rather try the obvious options first rather than expect the owners to heuristically discover via non-returning customers that we really don't want the app.

That is, if the coffee/food/service is good, otherwise yea fuck em

Tech speeds things up. If you want to do good, it'll help you do it faster. If you want to do evil, it'll help you do it faster.

I think when most people say something like “technology is making the world worse” they mean the technology as it actually exists and as it is actually developing, not the abstract sense of possible futures that technology could feasibly deliver.

That is clearly what the author of the piece meant.

If the main focus of people who develop most technology is getting people more addicted to their devices so they are easier to exploit then technology sucks. If the main focus is to generate immoral levels of waste to scam venture capitalists and idiots on the internet then technology sucks. If the main focus is to use technology to monetize every aspect of someone’s existence, then I think it is fair to say that technology, at this point in history, sucks.

Saying “technology is neutral” is not super insightful if, in the present moment, the trend in technological development and its central applications are mostly evil.

Saying “technology is neutral” is worse than unhelpful if, in the present moment, the people who want to use technology to harm others are also using that cliche to justify their antisocial behavior.

I didn't find the article particularly insightful but I don't like your way of thinking about tech. Technology and society make each other together. Obviously, technology choices like mass transit vs cars shape our lives in ways that the pens example doesn't help us explain. Similarly, society shapes the way that we make technology. Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint. The leftover space (i.e. the vast majority) is the process through which we embed social values into the technology. To return to the example of mass transit vs cars, these obviously have different embedded values within them, which then go on to shape the world that we make around them.

This way of thinking helps explain why computer technology specifically is so awful: Computers are shockingly general purpose in a way that has no parallel in physical products. This means that the underconstraining is more pronounced, so social values have an even more outsized say in how they get made. This is why every other software product is just the pure manifestation of capitalism in a way that a robotic arm could never be.

edit to add that this argument is adapted from Andrew Feenberg's "Transforming Technology"

I think I basically agree with you and the author here. People applying technology have a responsibility to apply it in ways that are constructive, not harmful. Technology is a force multiplier, in that it makes it easy to achieve goals, in a value neutral sense.

But way too many people are applying technology in evil ways, extracting value instead of creating it, making things worse rather than better. It's an epidemic. Tech can make things better, and theoretically it should, but lately, it's hard to say it has, on the net.

I think a clear distinction to make might be:

“Tech” as used in this sense is the industrial complex around mobile and web technologies dominated by a few players who might just be evil.

“Technology” is, of course, everything you mentioned and more. A rock that fits nicely in your hand becomes technology when used to crack a coconut.

It’s a weird linguistic murkiness, isn’t it?

For many things I completely agree.

That said, we just had our second kid, and neither set of grandparents live locally. That we can video chat with our family

for free, essentially!

is astonishing. And it's not a big deal, not something we plan, just, "hey let's say hi to Gramma and Gramps!"

When I was a kid, videoconferencing was exclusive to seriously high end offices. And when we wanted to make a long distance phone call, we'd sometimes plan it in advance and buy prepaid minutes (this was on a landline, mid 90s maybe). Now my mom can just chat with her friend "across the pond" whenever she wants, from the comfort of her couch, and for zero incremental cost.

I think technology that "feels like tech" is oftentimes a time sink and a waste. But the tech we take for granted? There's some pretty amazing stuff there.

They're conflating tech with tech bros.

Tech can and does make lots of things that make our lives longer and better. Just not most of the consumer level shit that is constantly peddled by snake oil sellers. That tech is not meant to make your lives easier, it's meant to get more money out of you without giving it up to the little people at service level.

The problem isn't the tech, it's the people who are controlling the tech.

Tech has made things more efficient - the rewards of such are simply being funneled from the average person to the wealthy.

I feel this every time I just want to see a restaurant's menu and instead I have to pretend I'm making an online order.

Yep, technofeudalism is here.

Yeah but parking has always been bad.

You had to carry change. Meters were always out of order or would just eat your change without issuing a ticket, and the people checking never gave a shit and would give you a fine anyway.

My only complaint is the app, everyone should offer a website or an app, but if you're going to park there a few times an app does make sense.

Yet more benefits to cycling then. Just lock it to any reasonably sturdy object.

I do think you're right. Friendster and MySpace were pretty much the peak, then when real social media took over, it all went to shit. Since then, tech exists not to perform some function but to justify its existence specifically to earn money.

I think in terms of cultural exchange of ideas and the enjoyment of being on the internet, 2005-2015 or so was probably the best. The barrier to entry was lowered to where almost anyone could make a meme or post a picture or upload a video or write a blog post or even a microblog post or forum comment of a single sentence and it might go viral through the power of word of mouth.

Then when there was enough value in going viral people started gaming for that as a measure of success, so that it no longer was a reliable metric for quality.

But plenty of things are now better. I think maps and directions are better with a smartphone. Access to music and movies is better than ever. It's nice to be able to seamlessly video chat with friends and family. There's real utility there, even if you sometimes have to work around things that aren't ideal.

It didn’t have to be this way; in a different kind of society it could have been a boon to everyone.

Please continue to espouse this viewpoint even under serious argument from those opposing it. Technology isn't inevitably shit. There are other types of software we can write, and other types of technology we can develop that isn't the result of some sweaty CTO hovering over our shoulders demanding that we make the world shittier for the sake of the shareholders.

We have to imagine the worlds we could've created through better choices. We have to imagine that we can change the course of things.

Honestly? Cool that you are asking, but I just want a coffee, not a conversation.

Yes, I'm German, how could you tell?