Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday October 13 2019, @03:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the last-throes-of-public-culture dept.

Mr. Schneier and friends have created a new website to promote a change to the socio-economic technical milieu we are currently facing.

He suggests we need to have "public interest technologists" to help the situation.

He writes:

"We need technologists who work in the public interest. We need public-interest technologists.

Defining this term is difficult. One Ford Foundation blog post described public-interest technologists as "technology practitioners who focus on social justice, the common good, and/or the public interest.""

Is he right? How can this be implemented without becoming as riddled with government agents, spies and mafias as the key positions of our corporations and institutions are right now?

Full disclosure: this writer has been a public interest technologist for a while now and I have actually alluded to the need for something like what is being suggested on multiple occasions, 'a different kind of organization' is the way I put it, way back a few months ago.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:47PM (#906653)

    maybe you get rich by making yourself indispensable (or rather, your "product").
    if you can convince that people need something from you then you get rich?
    so there's at least two categories.
    one are the things you really need and things you don't but make your life ... more agreeable.
    since we are (mostly) not at war on a global scale, number one things seem to be affordable overall (or at least not scarce).
    number two things are mostly what generates the huge wealth discrepancy. we "make a few rich" so many can feel they have a better life?
    it's not like the rich came to your house and force you to open your safe or lift your mattress and turn over your hard earned cash?
    i assume "number one things" are also the source of some very rich people but even the rich understand that war is misery for all,
    so those rich from "number one things" tend not to exploit the nature of the thing, rather increasing the availability and affordability (more buyers equals more profit).
    one assumes this requires a certain amount of "up front cost" to realize -aka- re-investment.
    as for "number two things", well ... (limited) exclusivity, scarcity and lots of brainwashing (advertising) is required to extract the monies. maybe other stuff too?
    so-called "culture" is a hotly contested turf for people getting rich with "number two things" and brain-washing starts early in formative years?

    as to comment concerning the actual article, just this: putting yourself "out there" will expose you to a lot of flak. more "brains" with "opinions" everyday ... and increasing.