Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.
On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.
This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.
On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.
Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.
To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.
The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.
If this resonates, let’s build together. 🌱
