this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
17 points (94.7% liked)

Investigative Journalism

178 readers
21 users here now

A place to post long form investigative journalism.

Rule 1: Be excellent to each other.

Rule 2: Can be podcasts, videos or articles. Post what it is in the tile as first thing.

Rule 3: Must be a good source. No far right or Russian tied outlets.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mj_marathon@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This article doesn't really say anything. It spends way more time talking about the annoyances of technofacism than the effect of being annoying as opposition. I don't disagree with the sentiment but this article feels lazy.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Here ya go:

The problem is relatively new, but the solution is very, very old. It’s the same answer trotted out by acolytes of the entirely-made-up Ned Ludd. It’s acted out on robotaxis, brought to halt by activists using strategically placed cones. We see it from every protester who has ever gone limp in the arms of state-sanctioned goons. The very messy humanity that these technical solutions seek to eradicate often become the best way to fight back against creeping technofascism. Become a real nuisance and tech boosters will eventually give up, handing the future back to the pestering, teeming masses.

On the flip side, a people-forward way of living, with a lot less technological intrusion, would definitely involve more annoyance. It would mean deleting your delivery apps, making phone calls to other humans, leaving the house and going shopping in person. It will mean accepting once again, however painful it may be, that balls and strikes are whatever the umpire says they are.

[–] mj_marathon@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

I can read, thanks. My point was that the article only talks about being annoying in the two paragraphs you copy/pasted. I wish there were more substance