diff --git a/blogContent/posts/open-source/towards-a-new-hacker-ethic.md b/blogContent/posts/open-source/towards-a-new-hacker-ethic.md index 0ab3668..d7d33db 100644 --- a/blogContent/posts/open-source/towards-a-new-hacker-ethic.md +++ b/blogContent/posts/open-source/towards-a-new-hacker-ethic.md @@ -1,26 +1,28 @@ -Last week I looked at [*Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker +Last week I listened to the talk [*Programming is Forgetting: Toward a +New Hacker Ethic*](http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/) for a second time. This was an amazing talk given by Allison Parrish at the Open Hardware Summit in 2016. The first time I was introduced to this talk was over a year ago by a friend that was introducing me -to the nuanced differences between "new" and "old" FOSS (Free and Open -Source Software) cultures. Whenever I listen to this talk I get -reminiscent about all the 70's and 80's hacker literature like the -["Hackers Manifesto"](http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html) that -inspired me when I was in middle school. +to the nuanced differences between "new" and "old" FOSS cultures. +Whenever I listen to this talk I get nostalgic about 70's and 80's +hacker literature like the ["Hackers +Manifesto"](http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html) which inspired me in +middle school. -In Parrish's talk she examined the points that Levy makes in his book -*Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*. This talk picked out how -aspects of Levy's hacker ethos are problematic and how we can work to -change this Hacker Ethic to be more supporting of diverse communities. +Parrish's talk examined the points that Levy makes in his influential +book *Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*. This talk picked +out how aspects of Levy's hacker ethos are problematic and how we can +work to change this Hacker Ethic to be more supportive of diverse +communities. However, before we dive into the breakdown of Levy's and Parrish's arguments, it is important to have a common understanding of these -things: +things: -- what being a "hacker" means +- what being a hacker means - our assumptions about learning, knowing and society @@ -30,10 +32,10 @@ things: The mainstream definition of a "hacker" is a derogatory term to describe cyber-criminals; however, "hacker" in the tech world is a -very positive and well appraised term. In the tech world, "hacker" is -used synonymously with geek: people who love to tinker with computers -at great lengths. Due to the vast differences in the interpreted -meaning of "hacker", people have been recently avoiding it. For this +positive and respected term. In the tech world, "hacker" is used +synonymously with geek: people who love to tinker with computers at +great lengths. Due to the vast differences in the interpreted meaning +of "hacker", people have been avoiding using that term. For this article and in general when people typically talk about "hacker culture", they are referring to the positive definition of hacker. @@ -41,31 +43,30 @@ culture", they are referring to the positive definition of hacker. Being the philosophy buff that I am, I believe that recognizing our assumptions about knowledge and society is quintessential to -understanding Levy's and Parrish's understanding of the hacker ethic. +understanding Levy's and Parrish's views on the hacker ethic. ![Knowledge](media/ethos/paradigms.png) On the scale of knowledge, people fall somewhere on the scale between subjective and objective thinking. An objectivist seeks -generalizations, favors statistical analysis, and views reality as a -fact separate from human experience. A subjectivist views that reality +generalizations, favors statistical analysis, and views reality as +separate from human experience. A subjectivist believes that reality is formed through personal experience and views knowledge as a working -definition up for change. When discussing learning, an objectivist -will try to find the **Truth**, where a subjectivist will seek to -learn **truths**. In policy analysis, objectivists would favor -quantitative methods where subjectivists would favor qualitative -methods. +definition. When discussing discovery, an objectivist will try to find +the **Truth**, where a subjectivist will seek to learn **truths**. In +policy analysis, objectivists would favor quantitative methods where +subjectivists would favor qualitative methods. -On the scale of social processes people usually fall on a spectrum -between *radical change* and *improvement*. +When examining socioty, people usually fall on a spectrum between +*radical change* and *improvement*. -Status Quo (Improvement) +Status Quo (Improvement) - social order - consensus - actuality -Radical Change +Radical Change - power structures - radical change @@ -73,24 +74,26 @@ Radical Change - contradiction - potentiality -Although people don't always fall at perfect edges of these spectrum, -it provides a good frame of reference for analysis. I'm going to argue -that Levy's ethos falls in the *positivism* quadrant where Parrish's -ethos falls in the *Critical Humanism* quadrant. +Although people don't always fall at perfect edges of this spectrum, +it provides a good frame of reference when discussing policies. Levy's +hacker ethic falls in the *positivism* quadrant since he focused on +incremental improvements twords "ideal" software. Parrish's ethos +falls in the *Critical Humanism* quadrant because she is focused on +the multiple truths of software communities and is focuses on the +power structure that software supports. # Levy's Hacker Ethic ![Levy](media/ethos/levy.png) - # Parrish's Hacker Ethic Rewrite ![Allison](media/ethos/allison.png) # Why the difference? -Despite the rewrite, both hacker ethics still emphasize the following -points: +Despite the rewrite, both hacker ethics still emphasize the importance +of: - sharing - openness @@ -98,59 +101,57 @@ points: - world improvement The major difference between the two ethics is not in the fundamental -message but on the philosophical perspective of the authors. +message but on the philosophical perspectives of the authors. Levy's hacker ethic was written and interpreted using the -incrementalism framework. Computer hacking is the means of +incrementalism framework. Computer hacking is the means of incrementally improving flawed technology moving towards the -**Truth**-- a computer system that perfectly works. +**Truth**-- a computer system that perfectly works. -Allison's hacker ethic focuses on how can we use technology to better -**truths**-- multiple computer systems designed with different -purposes to better support communities. +Parrish's hacker ethic focuses on how can we use technology to better +**truths**-- computer systems designed with different purposes to +better support communities. # Who is right? -As a subjectivist I would argue that the debate over which one is the -**True** hacker ethic is fruitless. Since Parrish did not radically -change the Hacker Ethic, I believe that we should consider it as a -valuable contribution to the Hacker Ethic. Moving forward with this -improved working definition of the ideal hacker, I believe that it -will better enable us to better support communities. - -Positivism has long been the dominant perspective when it comes to -politics and research. However, in recent years there has been a -shift towards a mix of objective and subjective perspectives -in research. This is due to the fact that when you look at the -objective **Truth** or average of a population you often ignore minorities -and edge cases. In public policy, an objective viewpoint is useful -when doing cost-risk analysis; however, subjective research is useful -when identifying complex social issues that are hard to quantify with -numbers. +As a subjectivist, I would argue that the debate over which one is the +**True** or better hacker ethic is fruitless. Moving forward with this +revised working definition of the Hacker Ethic will better enable us +to better support diverse communities. + +Positivism has long been the dominant perspective in politics and +research. However, in recent years there has been a shift towards a +mix of objective and subjective perspectives in research. This is due +to the fact that when you look at the objective **Truth** or the +average of a population you often ignore minorities. In public policy, +an objective viewpoint is useful when doing cost-risk analysis; +however, subjective research is useful when identifying complex social +issues that are hard to quantify with numbers. # How did we get here in technology? During the [Future is Open Conference](https://fossrit.github.io/events/2019/10/26/the-future-is-open/) [Mike Nolan](https://nolski.rocks/) gave an amazing analogy that -exhibits how we got here and why we need to have the objective vs -subjective debate in FOSS and hacker culture. Nolan compared -the beginning of technology to homesteading in the western frontier. -In the beginning, there was plenty of land for everyone and everyone -got their own chunk of land. Everyone was happy and they maintained -their land or software independently of each other. There was rarely -an issues. However, as time went on you couldn't get your own plot of -land. We now all live in large cities packed with communities, -governments, and law affecting our every action. With all of these -competing entities it is impossible to work on instrumental software -without interacting with these entities. - -The things that hackers make often start as a personal project. We as -hackers are content with perusing these projects towards our own -objective **Truth**. What started as a personal project may turn into -a massive open source project that dozens of communities depend on. -This is the root of a ton of friction now in days: our objective -**Truth** may not align with the **truths** or needs of the community. -To alleviate this "friction", I believe that adopting Allison's -subjective interpretation of the Hacker Ethic is a great way to start. +explains how we got here and why we need to have this debate in FOSS +and hacker culture. Nolan compared the beginning of computers to +homesteading in the western frontier. In the beginning, there was +plenty of land for everyone and everyone got their own chunk of land. +Everyone was happy and they maintained their land or "software" +independently of each other. There was seldom any issues. However, as +time went on you couldn't get your own plot of land. We now all live +in large cities packed with communities, governments, and law swaying +our every action. With all of these competing entities, it is +impossible to work on instrumental software without interacting other +entities. + +The things that hackers make often originate as a personal project. We +as hackers are content with perusing these projects towards our own +objective **Truth**. Over time what started as a personal project may +turn into a massive open-source project that dozens of communities +depend on. This is the root of a ton of friction now in days: our +objective **Truth** as the original developer may not align with the +**truths** or needs of the community. To alleviate this "friction", I +believe that adopting Parrish's subjective interpretation of the +Hacker Ethic is a great way to start.