Your problem is with Google, not with Android, MG.
12 January 2012
Well, this MG Siegler rant about Android makes the round, doesn’t it?
Let me emphasize that I do not think that MG Siegler is dumb or crazy. On the contrary, he knows what he is doing. The fact he used to write scripts for Hollywood before he made a career for himself in the technology news business certainly gives him an advantage when communicating a specific agenda. Whatever that may be, I do not know. But one doesn’t need to be a genius to see that he doesn’t really like Google.
Usually, I do not give a shit about those posts. Either out of arrogance or because I just got used to the kind of bickering, non-journalism that emerged out of that thing we know as techcrunch. But after reading this post about Android, I felt like I want to say something. Especially after readings this:
It’s so wonderful that the platform which helped cripple Net Neutrality and is keeping the evil carriers in control is taking off. Make no mistake: Android is now the carriers’ best friend.
Here is the thing. MG’s problem is not with Android in itself, but with Google. I can not read minds, but I’m fairly sure that he actually knows this. He decides to frame Android into this picture as if a technology can have an agenda. To that, I can only refer to an article by Vint Cerf on why access to the internet shouldn’t be a human right:
But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things.
Technology is neither evil, nor good. It is what we make out of it. Android is not a bad OS, because Google is making some bad decisions and collaborating with ISP’s. There are plenty reasons to critisize Android, Google’s political decisions shouldn’t be part of it. My hesitation to buy iOS devices is not rooted in the fact that it’s a bad OS – on the contrary –, but on how Apple as a company is using technology to create a very specific ecosystem.
So, if you re-post or quote MG, keep in mind: his problem is really not Android, it’s Google.
Regardless of the fact that Android™ is a product, not a technology as such: haven’t we moved beyond the “technology is neutral” discussions and found that this statement simply isn’t true? Haven’t we internalized “Code is Law” and realized that technology has it’s own “wants”?
(Btw, you should definitely check out Albert Wengers response to Vint Cerf: http://continuations.com/post/15564515776/the-internet-is-a-human-right)
— mjays · Jan 12, 09:13 PM · #
In all fairness, you are right: Android is a product. A technology product. You can also say it’s just a name for a bunch of lines of codes (in this case millions).
That said, I do not see the point: Even if you apply “Code is Law”. As far as I know, aren’t writing themselves. Same goes for Code. In that regard, it technology is not an agent in itself. It can be used for good and for bad. But it does not act on itself.
And no, I did not move beyond “technology is neutral”. I do not see why I should.
— Igor · Jan 12, 09:27 PM · #
No, technology does not have agency in and of itself. Yet technology amplifies the agency of those who create it, thus multiplying their embedded beliefs.
Technology is not created in a vacuum. It is created within very specific circumstances and motives, and those get imbedded in the technology.
Technology can be used for good and bad, yes, but only within the realm which is set by the specific technology.
Going further, I’m fairly certain Cerf meant that no specific technology should be ascribed the status of a human right, not technology as a whole. (Housing, which in all fairness can be seen as a technology, certainly is a human right, while still paying no attention to the specific type of housing.)
[I really don’t care much about the Android bit. I’m just curious why it got you so startled.]
— mjays · Jan 12, 09:43 PM · #
You right and actually didn’t disagree. As I said, his problem is with Google – the creator of the code out of which the product Android consist – not with Android. But, and he knows it well, by tarnishing and bashing Android, he can achieve – or at least attempt – to strike his argument more easily. He makes it into a Android vs. iOS thing. That’s pure simplification and a misleading argument. Saying that Android basically broke Net Neutrality just pisses me off.
And so yeah, that startled me.
— Igor · Jan 12, 09:48 PM · #