Is Technofeudalism the fuel behind the growth in crypto adoption by milennials? (This is to address a blog article from Umair Haque.)

This article presents an interesting perspective which led my to a conclusion that these are the trend forces behind the growth of crypto. Young people want more control over their own lives and a sense that they can be owners even if it's digital. Decentralized ownership allows more people to feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves, and it satisfies the basic human sensibilities.

Why would a young person choose to feel like a serf when they have the option to feel like a lord, a king or a queen?

Algorithms aren’t human beings. They don’t mistakes. They don’t care. You can’t give them feedback or insight or even a “no”. They are the definition of cruel. They leave no room for our emotions, do they? You don’t feel “happy” on Facebook — you feel relieved, maybe. The worker at the Amazon warehouse feels exactly the same way, too. So it isn’t just that algorithmic work and play turn whatever they touch into menial labour, even “having fun” or “making friends”—formulaic, routine, no room for imagination or innovation — it is that algorithimic life is hyper-alienating. It sets a vanishingly low but iron-clad bar on what we can really give to one another— happiness, empathy, beauty, truth, wisdom, courage, grace — that we can never really reach past.

Laws, social norms, these do the same thing and are not that different from algorithms in that regard. They restrict creativity to certain safe (as decided by society) paths. This is the one legit criticism I do see from this algorithmic way of life but it's also the case that even without computers there were these same restrictions so the algorithms only bring order to the digital realm. Structured information is useful which is why algorithms must exist.

The article goes on to pose a question which again highlights to me not the problem being the algorithms but the centralized AI and human beings. Whichever company this article is complaining about has human owners and those human owners do not at this time allow the users to be co-owners of the platform. This is in my opinion the actual flaw (user disempowerment) not the algorithms themselves.

Perhaps you will still minimize this, so ask yourself: would you like to be managed by an algorithm? How would it make you feel? Would you ever be able to please it?

This question is sneaky in that it asks about what we would want to manage us. It assumes we cannot manage ourselves. If we cannot manage ourselves then we require a boss? So it is asking do we want our bosses to be human beings or algorithms? I think this is asking the wrong question and the question is also poorly designed. If I am focused on trying to do what is best for my company then I would expect all who work with me to have that same goal (including our algorithms). If we all share this goal then it will be soon clear whether algorithms are better at managing people than people are. I also think it depends on the kind of business it is because some businesses require human connection while other businesses do not, so this question is too generalized to produce a useful answer.

This question also assumes we cannot be the owners and that the human users must work for the machines. In this quote if it is a situation where the humans must work only for the algorithms then I could relate but I think it is very unlikely to ever play out like this unless human beings push really hard to make it like that. Human beings do not work for the machines but for themselves, to make life better for themselves and others.

Don't we work for algorithms already?

No we do not. When we work we are working to satisfy the customer. This customer could be a mathematical model of what we think the typical customer is (as simulated by our brains or by formulas). This typical customer, client, etc, isn't an "algorithm" but is a model. A model can include algorithms but it is quite a bit more and the model must always be updated as new knowledge is gained. Customer satisfaction is the key performance indicator to track and algorithms can help track this and that is the reason algorithms are useful.

As far as being managed by an algorithm? That should be left up to the individual. If the individual feels uncomfortable being managed by an algorithm then they should be free to do it the old fashioned way in their own business. If they find the old fashioned way costs more but are willing to pay for it in order to satisfy their human sensibilities then this is okay.

Now. Algorithmic work destroys the idea of a “job”. It just needs people to perform immediate tasks — and they are interchangeable. Whether they are warehouse workers or therapists or doctors.

This is true. Algorithmic labor (microlabor) does destroy the traditional concept of labor. I try not to use the word "work" because I think there is a difference between work and labor. Play could actually be work in disguise. Work is just the transfer of energy in physics, also known as effort, but if we are talking about labor then that is typically a role in society where the person doing it is providing goods and services to the community. I think again that utilitarian ideals matter here and happiness if it is generated by these products and services then we can say it is adding value in this world.

Just producing crap which no one cares about, even if it is being bought and sold by government contracts, is not necessarily producing happiness. So while we can say the weapons maker is producing a product (items to hurt people with), it is a different question entirely whether it is aligned with utilitarian ethics to be a weapons maker. Weapons create suffering, misery, and unhappiness, and in my opinion it is the measure of a product or service (the most important performance indicator) whether it fulfills a need or satisfies a need which produces more happiness in the world than before that product or service was created.

. People will simply be at the whim and mercy of what the algorithm demands, today, tomorrow, this hour, this minute — and they will be powerless to change it. Enter the techno-serf.

Who owns these algorithms and is it a techno-serf to work for an algorithm? Okay if I were to take that statement as true then is it not a serf position to work in retail or work where there is a human manager? I really do not see the big difference made by whether the manager is a human or an algorithm. The problem with being in these positions at least in my opinion is the fact that the laborers do not acquire any ownership rights. This is the case on most social media platforms (Steem is an interesting exception), and I do not at all blame the current state of affairs on the algorithms behind traditional social media but entirely on the centralization of ownership. If you hold shares in traditional social media companies then you're the owner, you get the dividend, you benefit from it's growth, you're given your cut. The people adding value to traditional social media (the people getting likes), are not necessarily the ones being given a profit share. I can agree with the sentiment that adding most of the value and getting only psychic credits is unfair, and this can and probably does make many of the users of these platforms feel like techno-serfs.

I think the solution is in part being offered by platforms like Steemit where the contributers earn ownership of the platform and over time can get to feel like lords, kings, queens, etc. In other words, decentralized ownership, and if there must be digital fiefdoms, then if there are more options then if one of them is badly managed people can leave, or even exist on many of them at a time, which could change how they all evolve. When users are locked psychologically, but not able to benefit from the profit, then these users are satisfied only on the superficial level which means there is a big opening for Steem and similar platforms to take a big bite out of the market share of the traditional social media platforms which we speculate may make many users feel like techno serfs.

Technofeudalism doesn’t just want our hand and our minds. It wants our souls. That is what it means even for its “winners”. Do you see how mindfulness and meditation are becoming “work requirements” at companies most adept in the practice of technofeudalism? Have you ever wondered why that it is? It is a way to manage the tremendous emotional tensions in people who are becoming overlords to serfs. You might think that being a master of serfs would be a pleasant thing, but you would be wrong.

This is a quote I cannot comment on much. I do think it is one way to look at things but I have not seen enough evidence such as internal documents to determine whether companies actually view their customers as serfs or adopt a feudalist political ideology. Regardless, the technology often is open source, and much of it will be decentralized, so users can transition into users(owners).

Conclusion

• Algorithms are not the enemy. We should decentralize access to both algorithms and machine learning.
• Capitalism is not the enemy. We should reduce barriers to entry so more people can benefit from capitalism not just as consumers but also as owners. Users ought to be owners and consumers at the same time.
• We must not lose focus on the utilitarian ideal and understand that user satisfaction is everything. The users are the kings and queens.
• There is no limit to the variety and number of platforms which can evolve. It simply has to be made easier and cheaper to make social media platforms (cheap like making a website) and over time we will see more competition. This means there has to be greater access to necessary algorithms which improve user experience. The user data has to also be transferable between them all so that there is no more vendor lock-in.
• Token holders can share in the profits, and users who provide value should become token holders. This breaks the model of the user that the article is speaking about (where the user provides labor and gets exploited). The user should provide labor even if managed by algorithms but be able to also gain increased ownership of the company or platform so that by cost vs benefit the sacrifice is worth it.

Labor in my opinion whether the boss is human or an algorithm isn't the difference maker in how I feel. In fact, a duty being fulfilled by me to a biased human who does not like me is likely to make me feel worse than if I'm meeting a quota set by an algorithm because at least with that algorithm I do not have to worry about certain other humans getting special treatment, or myself getting special treatment, because when we are all numbers we all are treated the same by that particular task scheduling algorithm.

I think while algorithmic labor may indeed be the future of "work" for many people, I do not think all work will be that kind of work. Work will be anything which generates value and value is created whenever one person is able to create happiness in another person. If Jane makes Pete smile or laugh then value was created for Pete in that instance. Just because the current economy does not recognize that micro-value is created by these little interactions, it does not mean that it isn't happening or that the blockchain will not eventually track this as well.

References

1. https://eand.co/technofeudalism-5603506c63db
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm