> Computer tools are undoubtedly perverted at their very origin (the abuse of the quantitative and the reduction to the binary are proof of this) but they could be used for other ends than the ones they now serve. When we recognize that the most computerized sector is the army, and that 94% of civilian computer-time is used for management and accounting, we don’t feel like the loom-breakers of the 19th century (even though they fought against dehumanization in their jobs). Nor are we defenders of the computer-created unemployed... if microprocessors create unemployment, instead of reducing everyone’s working-time, it’s because we live in a brutal society, and this is by no means a reason to destroy microprocessors.
They’re no entirely wrong either, and 40 years later I can’t say we’re thaaaat far off from what they describe here. Of course they couldn’t imagine how computers are used for constant surveillance (or advertising as we like to call it), but still not that far off.
> abuse of the quantitative and the reduction to the binary are proof of this
I'd love to hear more about this, because it seems like they're just lacking in imagination.
And it seems they were attacking the tools instead of society itself, and it was bound to fail(which it did). It's like breaking a knight's sword in the middle ages, and thinking the knight will just go home and go to sleep without his sword. No, he'll just find some other way to kill you. Or repair his sword so it is even stronger than before.
I also extremely doubt the efficacy of their "timebombs"
They’re no entirely wrong either, and 40 years later I can’t say we’re thaaaat far off from what they describe here. Of course they couldn’t imagine how computers are used for constant surveillance (or advertising as we like to call it), but still not that far off.