Cory Doctorow: Techno-optimism

‘‘Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?’’ It’s a question I get asked so often that I have a little canned response I can rattle off without thinking: ‘‘In order to be an activist, you have to be both: pessimistic enough to believe that things will get worse if left unchecked, optimistic enough to believe that if you take action, the worst can be prevented.’’

But there’s more to it than that. I’ve been called a techno-utopian. I don’t know about that, but I’ll at least cop to ‘‘techno-optimist.’’ Techno-optimism is an ideology that embodies the pessimism and the optimism above: the concern that technology could be used to make the world worse, the hope that it can be steered to make the world better.

To understand techno-optimism, it’s useful to look at the free software movement, whose ideology and activism gave rise to the GNU/Linux operating system, the Android mobile operating system, the Firefox and Chrome browsers, the BSD Unix that lives underneath Mac OS X, the Apache web-server and many other web- and e-mail-servers and innumerable other technologies. Free software is technology that is intended to be understood, modified, improved, and distributed by its users. There are many motivations for contributing to free/open software, but the movement’s roots are in this two-sided optimism/pessimism: pessimistic enough to believe that closed, proprietary technology will win the approval of users who don’t appreciate the dangers down the line (such as lock-in, loss of privacy, and losing work when proprietary technologies are orphaned); optimistic enough to believe that a core of programmers and users can both create polished alternatives and win over support for them by demonstrating their superiority and by helping people understand the risks of closed systems.

While some free software activists might dream of a world without proprietary technology, the pursuit of free software’s ideology is generally more practical in its goal; like good technologists, they view proprietary technology as a bug, and bugs can’t necessarily be eliminated. It’s just not possible to squash every bug, so programmers track, isolate, and minimize bugs instead. Take the Ubuntu operating system, a very popular flavor of GNU/Linux. The first bug in its bug-tracker is this:

‘‘Bug Description: Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.

‘‘Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world’s population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.’’

This bug has been ‘‘open’’ (that is, still not satisfactorily resolved) since 2004 and I’d be surprised to see it closed in the near-term. Nevertheless, each revision of Ubuntu has worked explicitly to minimize the harm arising from the bug, by providing an operating system that can be easily switched to from Microsoft’s products, with similar keyboard shortcuts and built-in programs, but none of the lock-in or restrictions. Ubuntu’s Bug #1 will not be solved by a product, but by a process.

This programmerly mindset is the key to understanding the pessimism/optimism duality. As a techno-optimist, I was heartened to see the role that networked technologies played in aiding activists in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and other middle-eastern autocracies to coordinate with one another. But as a techno-pessimist, I was horrified to see activists making use of unsecured unfit systems like Facebook, which make it trivial for authorities to snoop on and unpick the structure of activist organizations.

This isn’t new. The convenience of privacy-unfriendly social-network technologies from Friendster to Facebook has made them tempting platforms for use in organizing activist causes. Those of us who care about the underlying tools used in causes have railed against their use for the whole time, with moderate success. But our Bug #1 is still open – activists, even technologically savvy ones who should know better – still reach for proprietary, unencrypted, non-private technology, citing the difficulty of using the alternatives.

They’ve got a point: right now, it’s harder to organize a cause without using surveillance-friendly technology than it is to create another Facebook group. It falls to techno-optimists to do two things: first, improve the alternatives and; second, to better articulate the risks of using unsuitable tools in hostile environments. There are high-risk contexts – repressive, bloodthirsty regimes – in which it is literally better to do nothing than to put activists at risk by using tools that make it easy for the secret police to do their awful work.

Herein lies the difference between a ‘‘technology activist’’ and ‘‘an activist who uses technology’’ – the former prioritizes tools that are safe for their users; the latter prioritizes tools that accomplish some activist goal. The trick for technology activists is to help activists who use technology to appreciate the hidden risks and help them find or make better tools. That is, to be pessimists and optimists: without expert collaboration, activists might put themselves at risk with poor technology choices; with collaboration, activists can use technology to outmaneuver autocrats, totalitarians, and thugs.

Autocrats’ use of technology against the Middle Eastern uprisings has been a wake-up call to a large group of technology activists and activists who use technology. As I write this, the net is alive with privacy-conscious activists building organizing tools that preserve anonymity, that fill the gap when governments pull the plug on the net, that prevent eavesdropping and fight disinformation. The best of these technologies will be open and free, such that flaws in their methodologies can be identified and repaired early through broad scrutiny. In the meantime, we techno-optimists will go on fighting against Bug #1, asking our colleagues to look past the immediate convenience of Facebook, and at the long-term risks of putting our freedom in the hands of private concerns who’ve never promised to preserve it, and whom we shouldn’t believe even if they do.

Cory Doctorow is the author of Walkaway, Little Brother and Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free (among many others); he is the co-owner of Boing Boing, a special consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a visiting professor of Computer Science at the Open University and an MIT Media Lab Research Affiliate.

From the May 2011 issue of Locus Magazine

23 thoughts on “Cory Doctorow: Techno-optimism

  • Pingback:Cory Doctorow’s >> Blog Archive » Will technology make us freer, and if so, how?

  • Pingback:Cory Doctorow’s >> Blog Archive » Techno-optimism

  • May 3, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Hi Cory

    I can see your point and I think it is valid but it leaves out something important, imo. All the time we talk about tech as a means to make the world better – and I know you are cautious on that particular pov. But for the most part it seems to me a new tech is hoped for to fix the problems the old one has created. Especially when we are talking about social problems. From where I stand we could, as a society, just say no sometimes (or yes). We don’t want this or we want that. Thus rendering certain technologies irrelevant, whether they already exist or are hoped for. There always seems to be this onesided focus on the role of technology (I fully acknowledge its importance), what about the role of will and choice. As an example the arab spring is probably closer related to soaring food prices than the existence of Twitter. Though the latter probably helped usher it it. Why do food prices rise? Because it is the newest playground for investment bankers. A group of people we have chosen not to regulate…


  • May 3, 2011 at 1:42 am

    i thought UBUNTU was a South African ideology about humanity and humaness, it gores me that some people have decided to name compurter viruses about after our sacred inheritence.

  • Pingback:Will technology make us freer, and if so, how? | boomeroo

  • Pingback:techno-optimism | expatiate

  • May 3, 2011 at 6:15 am

    This sounds like a lot of the Radical Constructionist ideas I hear from people like Molly Wright Steenson. We live in a 90% a constructed world. Nearly everything we see, use, interact with, or handle is made by humans. Which means we need to be thoughtful and careful about what we build, because collectively we are literally building our world around us that we and our descendent’s will live in.

  • Pingback:Doctorow’s Definition of “Techno-Optimism” Is Full of Fear & False Choices

  • May 3, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Thabo: Ubuntu was created in Africa, by Africans, as an operating system that could be used in Africa, by Africans. They called it “Ubuntu” because they hoped to embody those values you mention in their means of producing, sharing and supporting their noncommercial project. I hope that clarifies things.

  • May 3, 2011 at 11:17 am

    This is a logical argument. But I think it misses a fundamental flaw in the web – that the path of least resistence has led to monopolies in each industry (search, email, social networking, auctions, shopping, video etc) and no-one’s figured a way around that.

    Because it’s not just the difficulty of building and using alternatives to Facebook – it’s also that much harder to have the same impact without Facebook. A system that lets up to 500m people join your cause with a single click will always have a huge UX advantage over one which requires a new user account to be created each time.

    Facebook might be written in PHP and hosted on open source LAMP architecture but that doesn’t make a bit of difference to how they invade privacy and censor dissent.

    Find me a web giant that is open source in the way it does business, and I might agree but, I can’t help but sense your optimism is wishful thinking.

  • Pingback:björn frisören

  • Pingback:Techno-optimism « PONTO ELETRÔNICO

  • May 3, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    But it is easy to replace FaceBook. You know WordPress, right? WP alone offers four different ways in which you can make a social networking service in about 10 minutes — 5 to install WP itself, and 5 more to install the plugin of your choice. And that’s only one piece of software. (that powers the microblogging service) is even distributed, allowing several websites to work like one. And those are just the options I can remember offhand.

    What most people lack is knowledge. That, and the will to give up *a little* convenience for *a lot* more security and freedom. How’s that for a bug?

  • Pingback:Das sind keine Ausrutscher. Das hat System « … ach, nichts.

  • Pingback:Links 4/5/2011: New PCLinuxOS Magazine, Firefox Fork, Linux Preinstalled on ARM | Techrights

  • May 3, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Thanks Cory for the writeup. I particularly appreciate this sentence: “The trick for technology activists is to help activists who use technology to appreciate the hidden risks and help them find or make better tools.” It’s amazing how much trouble that little trick can save down the road if all of “us” technology activists took some time to educate our activist friend who use technology…

  • Pingback:Technology, politics, and balance | WEBLOGSKY: Jon Lebkowsky's Blog

  • Pingback:Cory Doctorow: Techno-optimism « So Much This

  • Pingback:Doctorow on the politics of technology choices « lotusmedia

  • Pingback:The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: May 4, 2011

  • Pingback:Geek Media Round-Up: May 5, 2011 – Grasping for the Wind

  • Pingback:P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Cory Doctorow on techno-optimism and techno-pessimism

  • May 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    I have the same point of view of Felix, with Buddypress you can start a social network, also it´s a great truth that the real issue is the lack of knowledge.
    anyway, Great article!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *