Trustworthy Technology
7 points by sjamaan
7 points by sjamaan
In short, we work together to build a unified alternative to BigTech-favoring solutions. [...] The current plan is to cobble a Voltron-style solution from different manufacturers and software organizations into as cohesive a platform as possible. One that mirrors the product line of a consumer-focused tech company like Apple. [...] Later on if successful, we might try to convince some of these companies to merge, or potentially persuade folks to invest in buying the others as necessary to complete the product line. Perhaps a consortium, or a “big Eastern syndicate would be prudent?” 😅 [...] The idea here is that expecting customers to navigate dozens of different hardware vendors and hundreds of software providers (“distros”) for support is not practical, and so one of the main goals is to unify them into a few principals—an “Army of Light” so to speak. [...] Whether this is able to happen simply via an online store, mergers, licensing deals, stock swaps(?), or whatever, is not too important—we simply hope to get folks collaborating as a first step. The insight here is that these pieces already exist! We simply need to put them together, like Legos!
...
*crickets*
Ahem! This reminds me of mimetic isomorphism; from the paper by DiMaggio and Powell (1983):
Organizations tend to model themselves after similar organizations in their field that they perceive to be more legitimate or successful. The ubiquity of certain kinds of structural arrangements can more likely be credited to the universality of mimetic processes than to any concrete evidence that the adopted models enhance efficiency.
You want to fight the empires, so you'd like to form an alliance of like-minded kingdoms and more or less replicate the organizational structure and methodology.. Fine, it might work for a while, but do you have the metaphorical equivalent# of nuclear deterrence? How do you make sure, being in the same market as them, you won't be thoroughly trampled upon, subjected to conspiracy, sabotage and sanctions? After putting so many eggs in the same basket, wont it just make it easier for the enemy to target, subjugate and ‘extinguish’ all at once? And so on. I'll leave it to others to find out more problems with this approach.
How to put it.. at least, maybe, try to make or adopt some political innovations. For example, how about taking a page out of how students organized the Gen-Z revolution in Bangladesh with decentralized leadership. So, do organize yourselves, but don't “unify”; see if it's possible to retain a decentralized and democratic^, spirit and ethic.
There can be a standards body or association to spearhead efforts to ensure interoperability among the products and services of the participants. But then again, we need to remind ourselves of and learn from what happened with WHATWG vs W3C and who ultimately benefited. So, even in this case, caution is warranted. Given the the scale of the adversaries, no amount of prudence and caution is too much.
A focus on ideological perfection often means compromises must be made (on the practical end) that are unacceptable to the general public, e.g., the use of substandard, incompatible, or old parts and designs. That’s more than enough to sink a risky new hardware business before it even gets started. Unfortunately the real world is rarely accommodating to mediocre (or worse) products that offer seemingly theoretical benefits. [...] Therefore, we suggest that ethically oriented companies and their designers not insist on perfection up front. Instead, make a compelling, flawed product first! Make money and don’t stop iterating every year, investing in the future. You’ll probably even have to offer Windows for a while. </uggh>
Sigh, compromising on the ideals already? Does it not need more consideration why they care so much about ideological purity@ before dismissing it for pragmatic reasons? Putting ethics first means the users will hold them accountable if they go back on their promise. Whereas when acceptance to the general public is more important, apart from ensuring convenience, it'd be sufficent to maintain a façade to the public, ideals be damned.
Let me put it in a different way: how do you ensure that you'll still strive towards the stated ideals after money comes in? That you'll not be enticed by the profits and swayed away from your goals? Pinky promise?
Then there's the possibility of the infighting regarding decision-making powers, due to disagreements, falling into political quagmire. And this is before considering external interference; once the enemy you're up against even feel a little threatened, how'll you deal with what you might have to face? How will you prevent an adversarial takeover through mergers or outright acquisition?
So make detailed plans, along with countermeasures to all conceivable possible risks. Do not hope to replicate the success of Apple. Diligence, yes; but that kind of serendipity can't be reproduced so readily. For an investment pitch, fine; otherwise, this kind of ambition is difficult to appreciate. At least not seeking infinite growth or joining the ranks (or files) of big tech is enough. Isn't the case of Mozilla quite an exemplary cautionary tale?
A Business Model
- Build cool (yet ideologically imperfect) openish hardware combined with FOSS software, supported through compatible business models.
- Sell it.
- Profit! 💰
- Reinvest and improve on #1. 👀
This reminds me of the concept of social business. Do you dare try this model?
A non-loss, non-dividend company, i.e.
- It is financially self-sustainable and
- Profits realized by the business are reinvested in the business itself (or used to start other social businesses), with the aim of increasing social impact, for example expanding the company's reach, improving the products or services or in other ways subsidizing the social mission.
Unlike a profit-maximizing business, the prime aim of a social business is not to maximize profits (although generating profits is desired). Furthermore, business owners are not receiving any dividend out of the business profits, if any.
# The tech empires compete among each other, sure, but they do not, usually, target the foundation of each other, to the point of bankrupcy. There's “peaceful coexistence”, even colluding together whenever interests align, due to, I suppose, a carefully maintained equilibrium of power.
^ Well known examples of democracies include Debian and Codeberg.
@ Ascription of perfectionism would be unfair to them in suggesting a sense of naïveté that, I hope, they don't have with regards to their ideals. Apart from purity, how about sobriety: in the steadfastness to the ideals despite temptations and despair. (I spent so many words to praise, don't embarras me, okay?)
The "unify" part is primarily for the storefront. That some orgs could merge for scale is not a big problem to avoid in my opinion. Not to mention speculative on top of conjectural multiplied by potential, and certainly there will be new orgs in the future as well.
This sounds like a case of overthinking the problem. Although there might be some good advice in there, I didn't find it.
How do you make sure, ...thoroughly trampled upon... no amount of prudence and caution is too much.
It's already true a lot of bad things could happen; they already are. Not an excuse to go back to bed however.
Further, the biggest companies typically allow a competitor to have scraps to discourage antitrust enforcement, remember MS investing in Apple. That's happening now. Extremely early to be worrying about this, before even starting. Currently we're like mites on the toenail of the Elephant. Big tech wont notice for a long time, and only if very successful.
Lastly, different jurisdictions exist. Fail in one country, succeed in another. EU waking up is currently in the news.
Sigh, compromising on the ideals already?
Not compromise, patience. We've repeatedly seen idealist orgs languish, while pragmatic ones succeed. Continuous improvement should fix that in the long run, but one needs to be patient and invest in the future.
How do you ensure that you'll still strive towards the stated ideals after money comes in? ... Pinky promise?
Not sure, but you could say that about any positive human endeavor. You've raised an incredibly high bar for a new organization to exist. Best we can all do is try and see. Trust is built slowly and destroyed quickly. Let that principle be the guide.
The "unify" part is primarily for the storefront. That some orgs could merge for scale is not a big problem to avoid in my opinion. Not to mention speculative on top of conjectural multiplied by potential, and certainly there will be new orgs in the future as well.
This sounds like a case of overthinking the problem. Although there might be some good advice in there, I didn't find it.
I'm sorry if it wasn't evidently clear. I'm not against unification per se, but I wish the union has a democratic character. (Edit: so what I was trying to express is the concept of co-operatives; in the case of storefront, platform cooperatives) As beneficial as it would be in the beginning, the more centralized the decision-making authority, the more vulnerable it would be at later stages, especially when you start to see some success. So, even if it's dictatorial (assuming benevolence) in the beginning, would you be willing to codify relinquishment of control, turning the organization into a cooperative, making this binding, set a reasonable milestone for it to happen?
Even if you don't want to turn into a full democracy, at least make the leadership decentralized: in that example of student protesters, when the authority arrested who they thought was the leadership behind the protest movement to try to call off by force, they did not succeed, the movement continued with greater momentum. The lesson learnt in this case cost real blood and involve insight that we technologists should hopefully understand the best. This was just one example. The history is long and full of bloody lessons. I just hope that in trying to replicate the success you don't also replicate the defects. To rephrase, what relevant precautions are you taking and be willing to take?
typically allow a competitor to have scraps to discourage antitrust enforcement, remember MS investing in Apple.
Remember Google paying Mozilla. How reliable is the supposed benevolence of big tech?
Lastly, different jurisdictions exist. Fail in one country, succeed in another. EU waking up is currently in the news.
So, why not try in EU in the first place, saving time and effort? The political climate in the US doesn't appear to be particularly favorable at this moment, nor does it seem to get better anytime soon.
Mere words are insufficient to console the grievance faced; or to express solidarity—with nothing else to offer, I'm helpless.
Extremely early to be worrying about this, before even starting.
Better to start preparing early, than postponing and then regretting when it is too late.
You've raised an incredibly high bar for a new organization to exist. Best we can all do is try and see. Trust is built slowly and destroyed quickly. Let that principle be the guide.
That the bar wasn't high enough could this tech dystopia emerge in the first place. So, put your promises in writing somewhere for us to see, even if as a canary, that we'll be able to ascertain the symbolic moment of breach of trust, just in case.
For the theoretical store, it sounds open to non-profit status or being a "benefit corporation," but that is conjecture. As you mentioned with Mozilla it isn't a silver bullet either.
Platform cooperative sounds interesting but these are not equal individuals manufacturing computers and cloud hosting in their spare time. This group of folks doesn't have any power over any of the companies or software projects mentioned, no ownership. This looks to be a curation and integration project so far.
There's no responsibility here for the past or present dystopia, nor authority to dictate to others, nor promises to be made about things that haven't even been decided yet, much less started.
The piece looks to start discussion and has perhaps moved from step 0 to 1, while you seem to be on step 42 playing five-dimensional chess. ;-)
these are not equal individuals manufacturing computers and cloud hosting in their spare time.
Then the consumers of the products and services. Purchase of products and subscription to the services can carry membership to the cooperative, if I understand correctly. The issue then would be about the weight of the voting power of producers and service providers vis-à-vis ordinary consumer members.
This group of folks doesn't have any power over any of the companies or software projects mentioned, no ownership. This looks to be a curation and integration project so far.
After the unification you speak of. Or, do you seek some different kind of unification than I understood and have been talking about?
nor promises to be made about things that haven't even been decided yet, much less started.
Once you start and form the organization (company, corporation, conglomerate or something else)?
while you seem to be on step 42 playing five-dimensional chess.
I don't work in the industry to be able to offer any keen insight or constructive suggestions to your immediate needs. My interests lie in the study of programming languages. So, take what I said so far with as much salt as needed.