It is a colossal misstep for the MIT Media Lab to move into social activism, and that is what this award is doing. If you'd like to be perceived as scientists, you lose your credibility to do impartial investigation of social trends. It's hard to trust a paper you've published on the impact of #MeToo when your department is literally rewarding the founders.
If you'd like to be perceived as engineers, you demonstrate a serious lack of focus. The Media Lab has historically been focused on innovative human-computer interfaces. When most people have spent significant time and several years interacting with social media, the Media Lab is no more qualified to speak on social media movements enabled by technology than the average person. They're borrowing the reputation of the lab to promote a political position, but its reputation is harmed by doing so.
Huh. I'd say work on "human-computer interfaces" is one of the pinnacles of social activism and always a highly politicised endeavour. The Media Lab has always had (in my fairly long memory) a reputation for empowering individuals in the face of authority. Disobedience is a perfect fit.
If being an "engineer" means not being involved in social activism, why would anyone want to be called or perceived as one?
Disagree. I think this is like saying Einstein shouldn't have been vocal about the Bomb. I think scientists (and scientific institutions) should use their visibility to make a social point, and that shouldn't at all undermine their scientific credibility.
I disagree. I believe the most difficult engineering problem in the world is changing human behavior and decision making at scale. Not behavior in terms of "tap the screen more often", but actually changing how we treat each other, how we treat the planet, consumption and consumerism versus preservation and reuse. To that end, this is engineering, and they are on the right side of history.
Further, social activism as engineering is important. It's engineering behavior so we're more inclusive. Inclusivity is important because we need lots of perspectives on how to solve problems. The more perspectives we have, the better our solutions will be.
Well sure. You'll notice that this award is being given out for a socially acceptable and academically approved form of disobedience that does not actually require disobeying anything.
Aaron broke the academic status quo and generated bad press. That's pretty unacceptable in the quest to make the world a better place for an organization that is primarily about image.
Institutions support social justice as long as its not too risky for them. It makes them look progressive. I'm afraid it's just good business tactics, instead of money they gain social wealth.
The MIT Media lab is operated by its researchers, not the MIT administration, and according to Wikipedia, is primarily funded through outside companies.
Agreed. I’m not sure how #metoo is “disobedient” in any way. It’s the popular position of almost the entire media, Hollywood, and liberal leaning people in the USA.
It’s the safest stand you can possibly take in 2018.
However, Defense Distributed should get the disobedience award, not Cody Wilson.
I am surprised Alexandra Elbakyan did not win this because of her work with sci-hub. What could be the biggest disobedience of all other than freeing science from the grasp of Corporate profithood by sacrificing your own freedom of movement?
Specially when the award is given by a science lab.
Yes, I think she'd be an obvious candidate. I'd be interested to know if she was nominated, and if so, what the discussion was.
My guess (as an outsider but with some small insight into the group making these awards) is that Elbakyan would have generally strong support for her direct work on Scihub, but would be unsupportable to some because of her political beliefs. That is, I think her anti-capitalist ideology and less-than-full-fledged support for modern liberal beliefs may more of a problem for the committee than her anti-copyright stance.
Stunning and brave... To support as "disobedience" something that every large corporation, every media organization, and a large swath of government supports.
> In 1997, Tarana Burke sat across from a 13-year-old girl who had been sexually abused. The young girl was explaining her experience, and it left Ms. Burke speechless.
Have female friends ever confided stories in you that left you speechless, helpless, and angry? And even that would normally just be the tip of an iceberg, not a full, detailed report of all the stuff that is going on... not even in their life, not to mention the world. The abuse that is going on is greater than our capacity to even face it.
And it is hard for people to speak about this stuff, and while I agree that it might not be "as brave" to encourage others to speak out, I think it's absolutely fine to award her. She's not the kind of person who gives a shit about awards. She wants actual abuse to actually end, she wants actual wounds to actually heal -- nothing more, nothing less, fair enough, godspeed, you go girl, all the good things... not just for her, but for the people she represents, and who are acknowledged by this award as well.
> Tarana Burke said she will not let her movement that she founded in 2006 and that has resulted in her getting death threats and having to challenge black leaders to support it, be co-opted by pretty girls and Hollywood.
So everybody agrees -- except the abusers, the people who don't want to hear about abuse, and the people sending death threats of course :P
> “We heard every manner of excuse ‘It’s really about white supremacy because our folks don’t have a history of that kind of thing back in Africa’ or ‘the real issue isn’t sexual violence, it’s false accusations against black men’ or my personal favorite ‘This is not a social justice issue; this is a social work issue.’ ”
> She cited statistic after statistic about women who aren’t famous but attacked because of their gender identity or economic powerlessness. But the worst, she said, was the fate of indigenous and Native American women “the group we talk about the least,” she said.
> She cited a Justice Department study that found that an estimated one in three Native American women will be assaulted in their lifetimes, that 92 percent of Native American girls reported having been forced to have sex against their will — and that nine of 10 Native American women and girls who survived rape or sexual assault were attacked by assailants of a different color, most of them white.
> “That’s definitely a racial justice issue,” she said. “And, at the end of the day, it’s a human rights issue.”
She seems to have the heart in the right spot, I'll say that much. Every "movement" can always attract anyone to do anything in its name, but I am absolutely down with what I read of that woman so far.
So, in a nutshell, the System's neatest trick is this:
- For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.
- The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.
- Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists "rebel" against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.
- In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.
- Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes.
Can confirm. I have this thought about tech on HN about once a week. Though I will say this thread is relatively tame compared to others I've seen today.
I understand the sentiment here but can we shut up about it for five seconds? As a guy I feel like I'm walking on eggshells every time I'm around women after reading enough of these.
[+] [-] khawkins|7 years ago|reply
If you'd like to be perceived as engineers, you demonstrate a serious lack of focus. The Media Lab has historically been focused on innovative human-computer interfaces. When most people have spent significant time and several years interacting with social media, the Media Lab is no more qualified to speak on social media movements enabled by technology than the average person. They're borrowing the reputation of the lab to promote a political position, but its reputation is harmed by doing so.
[+] [-] cdent|7 years ago|reply
If being an "engineer" means not being involved in social activism, why would anyone want to be called or perceived as one?
[+] [-] pfd1986|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davmar|7 years ago|reply
Further, social activism as engineering is important. It's engineering behavior so we're more inclusive. Inclusivity is important because we need lots of perspectives on how to solve problems. The more perspectives we have, the better our solutions will be.
[+] [-] jacquesm|7 years ago|reply
They stopped being 'cool' and they won't get that image back by pretend stuff like this.
http://swartz-report.mit.edu/
Having Aaron win the Disobedience Award would have been a fitting punishment, instead they took it to the max.
[+] [-] Junk_Collector|7 years ago|reply
Aaron broke the academic status quo and generated bad press. That's pretty unacceptable in the quest to make the world a better place for an organization that is primarily about image.
[+] [-] strikelaserclaw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ancorevard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] primroot|7 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/elite-...
[+] [-] nickysielicki|7 years ago|reply
(This is not to imply that I think anyone in this article is undeserving of an award for things they've done.)
[+] [-] SlowRobotAhead|7 years ago|reply
It’s the safest stand you can possibly take in 2018.
However, Defense Distributed should get the disobedience award, not Cody Wilson.
[+] [-] catacombs|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nafizh|7 years ago|reply
Specially when the award is given by a science lab.
[+] [-] nkurz|7 years ago|reply
My guess (as an outsider but with some small insight into the group making these awards) is that Elbakyan would have generally strong support for her direct work on Scihub, but would be unsupportable to some because of her political beliefs. That is, I think her anti-capitalist ideology and less-than-full-fledged support for modern liberal beliefs may more of a problem for the committee than her anti-copyright stance.
Here's a presentation where Elbakyan talks more about her political beliefs: https://openaccess.unt.edu/symposium/2016/info/transcript-an...
[+] [-] patrickg_zill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|7 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/me-too-movement-tarana...
> In 1997, Tarana Burke sat across from a 13-year-old girl who had been sexually abused. The young girl was explaining her experience, and it left Ms. Burke speechless.
Have female friends ever confided stories in you that left you speechless, helpless, and angry? And even that would normally just be the tip of an iceberg, not a full, detailed report of all the stuff that is going on... not even in their life, not to mention the world. The abuse that is going on is greater than our capacity to even face it.
And it is hard for people to speak about this stuff, and while I agree that it might not be "as brave" to encourage others to speak out, I think it's absolutely fine to award her. She's not the kind of person who gives a shit about awards. She wants actual abuse to actually end, she wants actual wounds to actually heal -- nothing more, nothing less, fair enough, godspeed, you go girl, all the good things... not just for her, but for the people she represents, and who are acknowledged by this award as well.
> Tarana Burke said she will not let her movement that she founded in 2006 and that has resulted in her getting death threats and having to challenge black leaders to support it, be co-opted by pretty girls and Hollywood.
So everybody agrees -- except the abusers, the people who don't want to hear about abuse, and the people sending death threats of course :P
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/metoo-founder-tarana-burke...
> “We heard every manner of excuse ‘It’s really about white supremacy because our folks don’t have a history of that kind of thing back in Africa’ or ‘the real issue isn’t sexual violence, it’s false accusations against black men’ or my personal favorite ‘This is not a social justice issue; this is a social work issue.’ ”
> She cited statistic after statistic about women who aren’t famous but attacked because of their gender identity or economic powerlessness. But the worst, she said, was the fate of indigenous and Native American women “the group we talk about the least,” she said.
> She cited a Justice Department study that found that an estimated one in three Native American women will be assaulted in their lifetimes, that 92 percent of Native American girls reported having been forced to have sex against their will — and that nine of 10 Native American women and girls who survived rape or sexual assault were attacked by assailants of a different color, most of them white.
> “That’s definitely a racial justice issue,” she said. “And, at the end of the day, it’s a human rights issue.”
She seems to have the heart in the right spot, I'll say that much. Every "movement" can always attract anyone to do anything in its name, but I am absolutely down with what I read of that woman so far.
[+] [-] adbge|7 years ago|reply
- For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.
- The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.
- Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists "rebel" against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.
- In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.
- Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-sy...
[+] [-] Zigurd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreakate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|7 years ago|reply
I feel like I'm going insane.
[+] [-] catacombs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandov|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stevew20|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]