Skip to content

Algorithmic Sabotage Manifesto.

Technology
19 10 8
  • Because when people write manifestos, they are often trying to convince the reader that they are highly intelligent more than they are trying to plainly explain themselves. They are usually a product of mania.

    This particular OP rather than suffering from mania is suspiciously bot-like. It's the second account I encounter in a few days whose posts and comments seem ever so slightly off - in this case it's just the completely random stuff they post and an uncanny and distanced way of commenting.

    I'm a bit dismayed that I now have to make an effort to distinguish real people from bots and that if I block those I find suspicious it includes the risk of blocking some real people who are just having a weird way of expressing themselves.

  • Gemini simplified it to this:

    "Algorithmic Sabotage" is a new idea about tech rebellion and fighting bad technology. It's not against tech itself, but about people pushing back together.
    It wants to break down profit-driven power in the online world, help us do what's right, and stop computer rules from controlling too much. This is a political stand, not just a tech one, rooted in fairness for everyone, everyone being treated the same, and people helping each other. It goes against how tech makes things unfair and gives some too much control. It's all about groups of people managing bad tech and building a different, collective way of thinking through art and action.
    For example, it could mean making artificial intelligence act unexpectedly or looking at how tech is used to create misleading appearances or exert influence.

    Okay thanks, though I wish you hadn't used AI. I'm fiercely against AI, which is why I voiced my disappointment that a cause I stand behind is obfuscated by pseudo-radical word salad.

    Anyway I don't believe OP wrote the manifesto themselves, so my criticism is most likely not arriving at the right address anyways.

  • Because when people write manifestos, they are often trying to convince the reader that they are highly intelligent more than they are trying to plainly explain themselves. They are usually a product of mania.

    I remember someone in a copaganda show once saying something along the lines of “whenever someone writes a manifesto, it’s either insane ramblings, or pseudo-intellectual ramblings full of big words that they picked out of a thesaurus and misused.” And sure enough, every single time I’ve seen a manifesto, it neatly fits into one of those two categories.

  • The problem with most manifestos is that every second word is more than 10 characters long. Why? Can you not write what you want to say in as few words as possible, and in a way it even can be understood by people whose native language is not English? Come on, give me an ELI5 please, I want to fight AI but I don't want to have to wade through word salad to do so.

    Isn’t it just precision?

  • Isn’t it just precision?

    Not if you could express it in a more accessible way without loss of meaning, and especially not if you claim to want a broader public to opt into your cause. Mostly it's smartassery. I understand that there's situations where you want to speak about scientific topics and need specific terminology for precision, but this is definitely not it.

  • Not if you could express it in a more accessible way without loss of meaning, and especially not if you claim to want a broader public to opt into your cause. Mostly it's smartassery. I understand that there's situations where you want to speak about scientific topics and need specific terminology for precision, but this is definitely not it.

    I’m not sure I always buy into the idea that precision is bad and broadly accessible is good. Not in this era of anti-intellectualism at least.

    But I definitely see your point, if you are talking about making things accessible. Vague claims of “they just want to sound smart” smell of anti-intellectualism to me.

  • Okay thanks, though I wish you hadn't used AI. I'm fiercely against AI, which is why I voiced my disappointment that a cause I stand behind is obfuscated by pseudo-radical word salad.

    Anyway I don't believe OP wrote the manifesto themselves, so my criticism is most likely not arriving at the right address anyways.

    It is ironic to run a manifesto against AI through an AI. Definitely not what the author intended

  • Isn’t it just precision?

    Is this really that precise? Reading through these 10 points, many of them seem quite vague to me.
    Phrases like:

    [. . .] a structural renewal of a wider movement for social autonomy [. . .]

    or

    [ . . .] emancipatory defence [sic] of the need for communal constraint of harmful technology [. . .]

    could mean a million different things, for example.

  • Theorizing “Algorithmic Sabotage”

    The “Manifesto” articulates a systematically structured sequence of ten distinct propositions, enumerated from 0 to 9, each delineating the underlying principles, strategic approaches, and aesthetic manifestations that shape the critical concept of “algorithmic sabotage” within the expansive and intricately interwoven frameworks of digital culture and information technology.

    1. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is a figure of techno-disobedience for the militancy that’s absent from technology critique.
    2. Rather than an atavistic aversion to technology, “Algorithmic Sabotage” can be read as a form of counter-power that emerges from the strength of the community that wields it.
    3. “Algorithmic Sabotage” cuts through the capitalist ideological framework that thrives on misery by performing a labour of subversion in the present, dismantling contemporary forms of algorithmic domination and reclaiming spaces for ethical action from generalized thoughtlessness and automaticity.
    4. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is an action-oriented commitment to solidarity that precedes any system of social, legal or algorithmic classification.
    5. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is a part of a structural renewal of a wider movement for social autonomy that opposes the predations of hegemonic technology through wildcat direct action, consciously aligned itself with ideals of social justice and egalitarianism.
    6. “Algorithmic Sabotage” radically reworks our technopolitical arrangements away from the structural injustices, supremacist perspectives and necropolitical authoritarian power layered into the “algorithmic empire”, highlighting its materiality and consequences in terms of both carbon emissions and the centralisation of control.
    7. “Algorithmic Sabotage” refuses algorithmic humiliation for power and profit maximisation, focusing on activities of mutual aid and solidarity.
    8. The first step of techno-politics is not technological but political. Radical feminist, anti-fascist and decolonial perspectives are a political challenge to “Algorithmic Sabotage”, placing matters of interdependence and collective care against reductive optimisations of the “algorithmic empire”.
    9. “Algorithmic Sabotage” struggles against algorithmic violence and fascist techno-solutionism, focusing on artistic-activist resistances that can express a different mentality, a collective “counter-intelligence”.
    10. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is an emancipatory defence of the need for communal constraint of harmful technology, a struggle against the abstract segregation “above” and “below” the algorithm.

    Interventions:

    ten distinct propositions, enumerated from 0 to 9,

    11th proposition: write unreadable manifesto and make sure to maximize irony by posting on a Microsoft site (github) that uses everything there for AI training among other things.

  • The problem with most manifestos is that every second word is more than 10 characters long. Why? Can you not write what you want to say in as few words as possible, and in a way it even can be understood by people whose native language is not English? Come on, give me an ELI5 please, I want to fight AI but I don't want to have to wade through word salad to do so.

  • Ah beautiful, that's the way!

  • Theorizing “Algorithmic Sabotage”

    The “Manifesto” articulates a systematically structured sequence of ten distinct propositions, enumerated from 0 to 9, each delineating the underlying principles, strategic approaches, and aesthetic manifestations that shape the critical concept of “algorithmic sabotage” within the expansive and intricately interwoven frameworks of digital culture and information technology.

    1. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is a figure of techno-disobedience for the militancy that’s absent from technology critique.
    2. Rather than an atavistic aversion to technology, “Algorithmic Sabotage” can be read as a form of counter-power that emerges from the strength of the community that wields it.
    3. “Algorithmic Sabotage” cuts through the capitalist ideological framework that thrives on misery by performing a labour of subversion in the present, dismantling contemporary forms of algorithmic domination and reclaiming spaces for ethical action from generalized thoughtlessness and automaticity.
    4. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is an action-oriented commitment to solidarity that precedes any system of social, legal or algorithmic classification.
    5. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is a part of a structural renewal of a wider movement for social autonomy that opposes the predations of hegemonic technology through wildcat direct action, consciously aligned itself with ideals of social justice and egalitarianism.
    6. “Algorithmic Sabotage” radically reworks our technopolitical arrangements away from the structural injustices, supremacist perspectives and necropolitical authoritarian power layered into the “algorithmic empire”, highlighting its materiality and consequences in terms of both carbon emissions and the centralisation of control.
    7. “Algorithmic Sabotage” refuses algorithmic humiliation for power and profit maximisation, focusing on activities of mutual aid and solidarity.
    8. The first step of techno-politics is not technological but political. Radical feminist, anti-fascist and decolonial perspectives are a political challenge to “Algorithmic Sabotage”, placing matters of interdependence and collective care against reductive optimisations of the “algorithmic empire”.
    9. “Algorithmic Sabotage” struggles against algorithmic violence and fascist techno-solutionism, focusing on artistic-activist resistances that can express a different mentality, a collective “counter-intelligence”.
    10. “Algorithmic Sabotage” is an emancipatory defence of the need for communal constraint of harmful technology, a struggle against the abstract segregation “above” and “below” the algorithm.

    Interventions:

    How can you write so many words but say so little.

  • I made a porn scroller without the clutter

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    4 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Why Decentralized Social Media Matters

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    388 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    189 Aufrufe
    fizz@lemmy.nzF
    Yeah we're kinda doing well. Retaining 50k mau from the initial user burst is really good and Lemmy was technologically really bad at the time. Its a lot more developed today. I think next time reddit fucks uo we spike to over 100k users and steadily grow from there.
  • 177 Stimmen
    118 Beiträge
    392 Aufrufe
    K
    My 2 cents is that it would have flourished a lot longer if eclipse wasn't stretched so thin like using a very thick amorphous log that is somehow still brittle? And ugly? As a bookmark.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    341 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 48 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    evkob@lemmy.caE
    Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported
  • 54 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    89 Aufrufe
    halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deH
    Though babble fish is a funny term, Douglas Adams named the creature "Babel fish", after the biblical story of the tower of Babel.
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.