At no point did your original post say anything about the politicization of tech; you literally were upset about the "chattering class" (definitely apolitical, unloaded term there) simply knowing about tech.
Everything with power is political. Tech is extremely powerful, and even if not directly inflicting harm it does in reality inflict harm, if not by intent then by carelessness or omission.
Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission, it hasn't killed people directly but has created even more leverage for elites to dehumanise processes, e.g. customer support, setting rental prices, showing ads, etc.
There's no way for tech to not become politicised, it's wishful thinking, and wishing it away doesn't change the reality, the further tech embeds into our lives the more power it has, the more political it becomes.
> Tech hasn't pursued wars like the oil or food industry but enabled hybrid warfare by omission,
By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things.
I absolutely reject the notion that anything tech has done is comparable in magnitude to the actual wars and actual mass killings funded by the oil industry.
Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles?
> Your rejoinder is replacing some customer support roles?
No, it was an e.g., it is right there in the post.
> By making everything equivalent linguistically, we lose the language to condemn terrible and awful things.
Completely agree, at the same time the harm created isn't inconsequential, do you mind coming to a term which we can use?
And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents.
> And by the way, you attacked tangent points of my argument, nothing in the substance of it. Power is politics, tech has power, so it's inherently politicised. Please attack this argument, not tangents.
That part is a relatively compelling argument and one that I am partial to. I think that politics is an overloaded term nowadays and many, quite reasonably, consider the personal to be political and power to always be political. In these cases, I again have the same worry about making everything equivalent linguistically - I fear we lose the usefulness of the word 'politics'.
But acceding to your definition of politics, I would change my original comment to be: I do not like the direction in which tech is being politicized. I think there are larger-scale power arrangements that do not get nearly enough attention and I worry that the current discussion is more around 'how can tear down those who are succeeding' and less of 'how can we better share in the bounty that is being created'.
