Underwriting my comments in this thread is my commitment to a specific kind of freedom: freedom as non-domination. Often referred to as (small-r) republican freedom, it differs importantly from (small-l) liberal freedom, which is freedom as non-interference. I think freedom as non-domination is the higher, deeper freedom.
Underwriting my comments in this thread is my commitment to a specific kind of freedom: freedom as non-domination. Often referred to as (small-r) republican freedom, it differs importantly from (small-l) liberal freedom, which is freedom as non-interference. I think freedom as non-domination is the higher, deeper freedom.
To illustrate: According to the idea of freedom as non-interference, a slave enjoys freedom as long as his master treats him well, or as long as the slave learns how to behave so as not to invite punishment. According to the idea of freedom as non-domination, this slave, while not being interfered with, is nonetheless deeply unfree. He is still dominated.
He is dominated precisely in virtue of the structure of the master-slave relationship: it's the arrangement itself that precludes real freedom. In a system of slavery, slaves have no publicly recognized, publicly legitimated, and publicly preserved paths of recourse in case their masters turn maleficent. The slave of a master who happens to be beneficent (for now) is still a slave.
The question is not about what kind of masters we might make technology and tech companies — savior, destroyer, or whatever.
The question is about whether we let technology and tech companies be our masters in the first place.
Underwriting my comments in this thread is my commitment to a specific kind of freedom: freedom as non-domination. Often referred to as (small-r) republican freedom, it differs importantly from (small-l) liberal freedom, which is freedom as non-interference. I think freedom as non-domination is the higher, deeper freedom.
To illustrate: According to the idea of freedom as non-interference, a slave enjoys freedom as long as his master treats him well, or as long as the slave learns how to behave so as not to invite punishment. According to the idea of freedom as non-domination, this slave, while not being interfered with, is nonetheless deeply unfree. He is still dominated.
He is dominated precisely in virtue of the structure of the master-slave relationship: it's the arrangement itself that precludes real freedom. In a system of slavery, slaves have no publicly recognized, publicly legitimated, and publicly preserved paths of recourse in case their masters turn maleficent. The slave of a master who happens to be beneficent (for now) is still a slave.
The question is not about what kind of masters we might make technology and tech companies — savior, destroyer, or whatever.
The question is about whether we let technology and tech companies be our masters in the first place.