Listened Episode 116: A Climate of Safety
Doug Belshaw and Dai Barnes discuss the development of social credit in China. Barnes shares how he got his students to think about this by creating their own social credit for the school space that steps away from teachers dealing with discipline and detentions. This reminds me of Google’s thought experiment associated with the human ledger.
Replied to Episode 112: Running to Bangkok by an author (Tide Podcast)

This week, Doug and Dai discuss what’s been going on over the last couple of weeks, MozFest, MoodleMoot US, Universal Basic Income, humane technology, Creative Commons, success, decentralised apps, and more!

Dai, I was interested in your discussion of James Bridle’s book. I agree Dai with your concern about such a dystopian portrayal. That was something that I tried to get across in my post on becoming informed. Is the answer that it takes a range of voices to get to this stage?

With this in mind I am intrigued by the video you mention from Vox featuring Tristan Harris:

I liked his suggestions, but for me it is like going to McDonald’s to buy a salad. The issue is not the salad, but McDonald’s and their push for non-human consumption. I wonder about a sustainable smartphone, one that is built ethically from the outset, not one that puts the blame back on the user. As Audrey Watters argues:

I don’t want to suggest that this is something the consumer alone is responsible for – blaming consumers, for example, for looking at their phone when it vibrates or beeps or for downloading Candy Crush and trying to get all their friends to play along. The whole modus operandi of the tech industry has been to create apps that are as engaging and compelling and viral as Candy Crush. The industry views its users as highly manipulable, their behaviors as something that can be easily shaped and nudged and controlled. Maybe it’s time to rethink and regulate and restrict how that happens?

Discussing the work of Harris the other such apologists, Watters asks why we should trust them:

Why should we trust these revelations (or revelators) to guide us moving forward? Why not trust those of us who knew it was bullshit all along and who can tell you the whole history of a bad idea?

I wonder then why we should trust Harris over Bridle and wonder whether in the end they both have a particular place at the table?