0x8ff

For the second category – technologies whose politics emerge from their intrinsic technical characteristics – Winner compares solar and nuclear power. Nuclear reactors, he argues, require a central authority to build, operate, and maintain (we might add here that they also require a con­stant stream of fissiles that can be extracted only from certain unevenly distributed mining sites). By contrast, solar can be installed anywhere the sun shines, established and overseen by small, decentralized groups. For Winner, nukes are irreducibly the tech of large, centralized states; while solar is potentially the tech of autonomous, nonhierarchical societies.

https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-technopolitics/

This seems like a great lens to view new technology thru: is it something that requires or furthers centralization and hierarchical authority (and hence brittle and locked-down), or does it empower individuals or small communities to become more self-sufficient and resilient?

Some examples.

Centralized: – Oil, natural gas, nuclear – Interstates, airplanes, trains – Banks, exchanges – Factory farms – Social media algorithms – AI datacenters and subscriptions

Decentralized: – Solar, wind, geothermal – Bicycles, EVs/micromobility – Cash, silver, gold, Monero – Homesteading, farmers markets – Fediverse, E2EE chats – Local AI

Personally, I think neo-luddism as a movement and growing opposition to technology should be directed at the former, rather than the later. Technology can be a truly liberating tool, but not if it can only exist in the context of centralized authority and control.