Thread by @alixtrot

One of the frustrating things about technology built/deployed in capitalist systems is that any technology built in the public interest is called #TechforGood. It's shorthand for technology built focused on good stuff, not on bad stuff.

Using shorthand here is very problematic.

I see (in the UK) #TechforGood debates and conversations happening separately from policy conversations about governance, questions of rights, and the debates raging over how we should manage all of our digital systems in pro-social, anti-racist, and net benficial ways.

There is no such thing as #TechforGood. There is technology built in accountable organisations, and technology built in unaccountable organisations. There is technology governed with legitimacy, technology not governed at all, technology governed poorly, etc...

By focusing so much on the 'what'...e.g. an app that focuses on youth civic engagement...we miss the challenging and hugely consequential details of the 'how'.

We should raise the bar. We should expect, and demand, that all tech (governed to) be good.

A separate question that feels hard to separate because...capitalism...is the difference between for-profit, non-profit, and not-for-profit organisational structure.

Non-profit = will never make more than it spends. Its work will never be market-based.

Not-for-profit = can make more than it spends but will reinvest excess in the underlying mission.

For-profit = aims to make more than it spends so it can pay excess to shareholders.

State-run = designed and deployed by civil servants, policymakers, and procurement process. Funded by taxpayers.

None of these organisations should be permitted (legally, politically, or socially) to deploy poorly governed technology.

By separating out the mission, revenue structure, and quality/legitimacy of governance we can have way more nuanced conversations about various implementations of technology. And we can push for what we want to see.

/rant