this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
69 points (65.6% liked)

Technology

68639 readers
3709 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A new progressivism, one that embraces construction over obstruction, must find new allegories to think about technology and the future

Black Mirror fails to consistently explore the duality of technology and our reactions to it. It is a critical deficit. The show mimics the folly of Icarus and Daedalus – the original tech bros – and the hubris of Jurassic Park’s Dr Hammond. Missing are the lessons of the Prometheus myth, which shows fire as a boon for humanity, not doom, though its democratization angered benevolent gods. Absent is the plot twist of Pandora’s box that made it philosophically useful: the box also contained hope and opportunity that new knowledge brings. While Black Mirror explores how humans react to technology, it too often does so in service of a dystopian narrative, ignoring Isaac Asimov’s observation: that humans are prone to irrationally fear or resist technology.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CoffeeKills@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Yes the future was on Black Mirrors' shoulders

[–] TDK3D@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago

Because every piece of media ever created has to show a balanced view of the idealistic potential of humanity and should never be allowed to emphasize one side over the other... right?

Stephen King enters the chat

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This felt like reading about someone who complains that The Daily Show doesn't have enough positive news stories on it. Dark Mirror fills a niche that people look for, it's not something that making people think a certain way.

And no mention at all of San Junipero. I guess that would break selling it as pessimism porn when there's examples otherwise.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The very episode that's shown in the thumbnail had a happy ending where the crew used his own tech against him

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

I haven't seen the sequel to it yet, and sort of was fine leaving it open-ended. I can see how there are dark parts to that episode, mainly from sticking with Dark Mirror's premise that tech can be used badly. It also paints a not-so-great picture of the real people, hero worship, maybe the gaming industry? The sim copies seem to make out the best of anyone. Definitely a favorite, if I'd rate it on dark vs. positive, it's 8/10 positive, whereas San Junipero was a 10/10 in the end. Actually San was a 9/10, as it did show that some used the tech there as escape and didn't grow like the main characters finally did.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Hang the DJ also had a pretty positive ending too.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

As a species we tend to always exceed the most sadistic-pessimistic fictional scenarios (through sheer hard work & determination).

So shit like this is prob overly optimistic sci-fi, give it some time.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 87 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I googled the author, he's a Tech Bro pretending to be a media critic. Shame on The Guardian for publishing this moronic clickbait guff.

I would say the guy clearly doesn't understand the most basic concepts of fiction, except I suspect he probably does but is ignoring them in order to push his agenda.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov 1 points 1 day ago

The term op-ed is literally short for "opposite the editorial page", and the idea is that it is an opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be brought into the discussion for consideration. The fact that the author is a moron does not besmirch the quality of the Guardian writ large.

[–] Brewchin@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's very much what the Opinion section in the Guardian is all about: an all comers free-for-all written by anyone who cares to submit a piece. Generally unrelated their news journalism and general mission/ideology.

I see why they do it: opposing views and so on. But in the current society of headlines are everything, knee jerk reactions, polarisation and the idea of a middle ground being treason, etc, we get "Why are the Guardian saying x?!" 🤷‍♂️

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 42 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Black Mirrors shows the future, extrapolated from current systems and events. It's not about new paradigms that might be possible.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It doesn't "show the future", though. This is exactly what frustrates me so much about online discourse and shows like Black Mirror, some new technology comes along and people go "that's a terrible idea, haven't you seen Black Mirror?" As if Black Mirror was some kind of rigorous scientific study that shows the One True Way that the future will unfold.

It's an entertainment show. Its purpose is to draw in viewers and keep them watching. You don't do that with episodes that show a new technology coming out and everything turning out fine, you do it by presenting a scary, compelling narrative.

We don't get freaked out in real life by summer camps and restrict the availability of machetes and other bladed instruments near them because of what happened in that documentary series "Friday the 13th." It's fiction. Plot trumps realism.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly I'm with black mirror. These days when a new tech appears, the mind immediately wonders how this will be abused it obstructed by other parties. That's not the show's fault but of what keeps happening in real life.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't think that way. Only when it comes from billionaires do I think that, but FOSS doesn't elicit the same feelings, nor does the advent of a new telescope or life-saving laparoscopic robot.

The problem isn't technology, it's the billionaires, and we collectively groan only because they've been allowed to abuse humanity for too long. Black Mirror is only correct insomuch as we allow that to keep happening, and we're far from powerless.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 6 points 2 days ago

Popular media doesn't really investigate other ways of organizing society. It's always the standard job, shop and money with only rare exceptions. It just swaps dollars with credits, uses hovercars instead of normal cars and calls it a day. Hell, they were shoveling coal into a reactor in Rebel Moon to power their space ship. I don't expect that much from entertainment and can live with the black mirror doom porn. Maybe I give writing my own stuff another try, but I'm not a good writer.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

Same here. There have been tons of technologies coming out recently where my main reaction is "awesome, I can't wait to use the heck out of that." If anything my biggest sigh comes from "but I bet the comment threads are going to be littered with tedious doomers moaning about how it's going to enable the awful stuff they're imagining instead."

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm glad this conversation is happening because I hate Black Mirror for this. Everything that happens is the worst possible outcome. The ideas and situations are great, but actually watching it is a slog. Pessimism porn is the perfect designation.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago

I much prefer Love, Death, and Robots.

[–] alphabethunter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Same! I've been parroting this same discourse ever since the first season aired. It's not even good science fiction, it's just all exaggerated to invoke fear, it bears no resemblance to a real world and future, and it doesn't reflect on it. It's a glorified dystopian tv mindless drama. It doesn't make you question and think about things, it just always defaults to: "this bad, really bad".

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Yes and no, because I think a thing fiction can’t do is repeat itself, so they must find interesting new angles in which they could reflect possible futures. The very much most likely future of whatever the thing is becoming an ad-laden, buggy, infinite-money ponzi scheme until it’s abandoned 3-72 months after its release and thrown into a landfill isn’t that interesting to see episode after episode.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 52 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Despite him being a tech bro and everything, I do think we need more shows like Star Trek these days to show us what a functional future with technology could look like. I think the only examples we see any more in popular culture are dystopian, and I think we are starting to believe that those are the only possible outcomes of the path we are on. Even Star Trek these days is pretty dark.

We need to again try to imagine a world in which the better half of humanity succeeds.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's a shame the nu-Trek is utter mass appeal apolitical dogshit that has nothing to say about anything except that Alex Kurtzman should not be let anywhere near a production of anything other than a Big Mac.

EDIT: By the way, if anybody is looking for something with the same sort of tight drama, clever storytelling and progressive politics (but not virtue signaling for its own sake) and confronting complicated issues and good people doing what's right overcoming them, but would also like it to be a bit more human, down to earth and character centric then trek veteran writer of TNG and DS9 - Ronald D. Moore and I - his biggest fan girl this side of the internet - would like to invite you to watch For All Mankind.

It is an alternate history show where the soviets "win" the race to the moon and the space race continues and every season is set in a new decade, or at least that is the tagline because underneath the goofy premise and out of context clips of the sea dragon or nuclear space planes or AK-47s wielded by cosmonauts on the moon, what you'll find is a tightly written complex drama about an ensemble cast of characters and their changing relationships to themselves, each other and the tumultous world around them.

The show covers everything from the consequences of operation paperclip, misoginy, red scare and cold war distrust to civil rights, feminism, yuppie culture, privatisation of space, startup culture, homophobia, labour unions, psychedelics, PTSD, opioids, threat of nuclear war, militarization and so, so much more.

I really can't say enough good things about it. Oh yeah - the licensed song choice is great. Petula Clark's The World Song, M83, Smashing Pumpkins, John Lennon screaming his lungs out in 'Well Well Well'? And that earworm song from actual IRL North Korea which is the first and only song I've ever heard of theirs? If only they didn't use 'Come as You Are' but oh well nothing's perfect.

The first season is a bit rough in places at the start as the show finds it's footing and the stupid generically modern intro animation and music really sucks but S2 is an actual masterpiece of TV.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

eh they try to be political they just suck at it.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That’s a relatively new phenomenon. All tech media was positive and the stuff of dreams until around the 2010s. Because we were seeing a steady and noticeable shift in the power dynamics. We were being pulled deeper under a capitalist nightmare instead of flying in a techno futuristic dreamscape. We couldn’t see anything but the piling negative aspects of our technology: it’s killing us, it’s enslaving us, its being used to spy on us, we’re being told it’s a wonder but we keep finding out it’s a horror. This isn’t on us for not being enlightened enough to see asimov’s words. We’re too aware of the active manipulation and torture. They made us the product, and they made the things we bought spy machines and tools of manipulation and deception.

We need to create better, freer tech, free from the oligarchs currently wringing us all dry while they build their multimillion dollar doomsday bunkers with the money they’re stealing from us if we are going to build the better world in which the better half of humanity succeeds. Art imitates life. And currently they’re outsourcing art to the oligarchs machines that are 10000x worse for the planet and the power dynamics.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago

There's been plenty of negative portrayals of new technology throughout the history of sci-fi. Heck, the very first one is usually considered to be "Frankenstein", and it's all about how new technology can backfire spectacularly.

I think the problem is not the existence of negative portrayals, but the absence of positive ones. There aren't a lot of shows for folks who want to see a positive view of the future, where technology solves problems rather than always being the source of them. That used to be the domain of things like Star Trek but modern Star Trek is a pale shadow that no longer paints a particularly rosy view of humanity's future. The Orville took up that mantle, I suppose, but it's stretched pretty thin.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah similar to what Vince Gilligan said, we need to make more stories about good people, because the media illiterate just start glamorizing the bad characters and completely miss the point

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hard to imagine when reality keeps showing otherwise.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago

At the end of the day, the future is written by human beings, and unless we have a collective vision of where we are trying to go, the darker forces among us will take control and do as they wish with us.

Yes, I loved classic Trek for showing a better a future, where humans have moved beyond our greed, prejudice, and self-destructive tendencies. That was the through line in TOS and TNG, even if it wasn't always 100% on-point and didn't always age well (you need to view TOS in its historical context to get past the baked-in 1960s sexism, for example).

There's a place for cautionary tales, and there's a place for aspirational tales.

I liked Discovery well enough for what it was, but I hated its picture of a future where good humans are the exception rather than the rule.

Nowadays, I think solarpunk is where its at.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 50 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'll take pessimist takes on technology over calling everything porn any day.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago

I would like to hear the author’s take on pornography porn.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

...ok...was it ever supposed to? For fucks sake, some people are so far up their own ass you'd swear they could see daylight again.

[–] EffortlessEffluvium@lemm.ee 32 points 2 days ago

The show’s name is Black Mirror, not Black/White Mirror. Of course it’s the monkey’s paw of tech.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago

If anything what we need right now is a more skeptical look at the past and the future as people are trying to sell us utopian visions of either as the solution to all our problems.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't like Black Mirror. I think it's generally lazy and sensational. But what this person is saying is not a valid criticism, it's like saying the Bee Movie would have been better if there had been an extended car chase. Louis doesn't want to improve the show, they want something else entirely.

If you want a contemporary forward-thinking scifi, check out author Becky Chambers!

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think he's proposing changing Black Mirror itself, he's saying the same thing you're saying - that it's just not a good show.

Like, if I was writing an article criticizing the prevalence of torture porn in modern entertainment, I wouldn't say "they should release a Saw movie where Jigsaw forces his victims to undergo nonviolent counselling." That wouldn't be a Saw movie, it'd be a weird parody of one. I'd just say "Saw is an example of the sort of thing I'm complaining about."

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It definitely reads like a criticism of Black Mirror to me

Black Mirror fails to consistently explore the duality of technology and our reactions to it.

Absent is the plot twist of Pandora’s box that made it philosophically useful: the box also contained hope and opportunity that new knowledge brings.

Black Mirror didn't fail to do those things, it wasn't interested in them

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The issue I'm taking is with:

Louis doesn't want to improve the show, they want something else entirely.

I don't think he's trying to "improve the show." He's saying the same thing you are, that he just doesn't think Black Mirror is a good show.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If he's not arguing to improve it, he's arguing that it shouldn't exist at all, which is worse.

We must move away from binary tales of catastrophe, not towards naive utopianism that ignores problems and risks that comes with change, but hopeful solutionism that reminds us we can solve and mitigate them...

I don't like Black Mirror, but I would never say that there's no place for it. It obviously resonated with a lot of people, and it was probably an entry into the genre for a lot of new sci-fi fans. Very 'Old Man Yells At Cloud'

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

It is possible to dislike something without believing it should be erased from existence. This is really extreme black-and-white thinking that isn't remotely realistic.

[–] S13Ni@lemmy.studio 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People who think you need to have optimist outlook of the future to be able to somehow manifest that into being are fucking idiots. I can enjoy my life, while being pretty hopeless about the future for human race, while still trying to do whatever I can to try to make things better.

If you can't do whatever you believe is right, because you are "pessimistic" about it working the way you want, then in my opinion you have fundamentally flawed view of the life as a whole, and probably don't know how to deal with negative emotions in a healthy way.

"We act because we have values, not because we know that our actions will definitely succeed"

-Jem Bendell.

And on topic of resiting tech, I work in IT and have more versatile tech skills than most people I know. Show me something that works and is useful, and I won't resist it just because it is new. But if you keep trying to sell me bullshit disguised as progress, than I will always tell you to fuck off.

If your AI product doesn't get mass adoption because of my negativity, then it is a shit product.

Comparisons in the article are also stupid. Sure I don't like coal used over nuclear, but nuclear is also kinda overhyped tech, that has been given so much benefit of doubt, but failed to deliver. Sure there has been some people who are irrationally afraid of it.

"Countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico and Thailand have run from vapes – outlawing them, while permitting traditional tobacco cigarettes for 1.8 billion of their citizens. Better unsafe than sorry."

Not a cigarette fan, but harder to ban those at this point, but with vapes it is still doable, and if not to protect peoples health, then maybe to avoid e-waste from disposable vapes.

"In the US, Robert F Kennedy Jr runs from vaccines towards natural herd immunity – although he might be having second thoughts now that the risks have become less abstract." Sure use antivaxxer idiot as an example of a tech critic, instead of anyone credible.

Same with 5G, sure there are conspiracy theories about it, but how about just asking wtf we need that fast internet for everywhere? For my phone use past 50 megabytes it doens't really make any difference if it gets faster.

"Stories that don’t make us forget that brain chips can liberate paraplegics, robot dogs can protect us from landmines, AI can prevent super bugs and VR can connect us rather than cut us off from reality – even if their vibes are “a bit Black Mirror”."

This last sentence really revealed the author as a tech bro. -Superbug thing is overhyped, they had used same AI for previous similar study, giving AI extra context that made it easier to solve that. Still impressive, but not representative of AI as a whole.

-VR is the rich kid of tech, always given money and second chance and always fails to deliver anything useful.

-Robot dogs and landmines, really? How about police using robot dogs to target protestors? Much more likely scenario for most people, and we already have used robots to defuse bombs for a long while now.

-Brain chips might liberate paraplegics and then company goes bust or stops supporting the product, re disabling that person. Has already happened with other tech meant to help disabled people. If I had to choose between neuralink (or anything from Musk) and being wheelchair bound for rest of my life, I would still take the latter.

I always consider both good and bad sides of tech, but most of the tech we are hyping now seems to come more down than upsides tbh.

/rant but this article really annoyed me.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Had me until the vr point. Vr has so many great uses from manufacturing and engineering to teaching and practicing medicine in a way that gives you a 3D presentation of schematics or human bodies.

Commercially vr is doing ok, but many of the issues have come from Meta bottlenecking the vr world by buying up all the big studios then having them make cheap mobile phone game-level experiences instead of really expanding the scope of things.

[–] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 7 points 2 days ago

It's not fictions job to sell your latest rentier extraction tool. The news media already does it by reprinting PR releases just be grateful for that.

If you want a positive view of the future any startup has the power to make one at any time. Then when you don't get funding you'll see where the real problem lies.