Hey it’s the assistive tech discussion around pervert glasses. Sure they can be used for helping people with a variety of differing needs. But they are primarily going to be used for feeding the appetites of perverts (sexual or technological).
Isn’t there a Java script function that allows you to rewrite URL on click? I remember it leaking on reddit years ago on Amazon URLs to insert their own affiliated link.
It’s just prevent default on anchor tag click, and adding an event listener to add custom click functionality. In most browsers you can get around it by using middle-click or right-click + open.
I always middle click everything out of habit now. Plus I prefer things opening in new tab.
Very basic example code:
<a id="visible" href="https://duckduckgo.com/">click me</a> <a id="hidden" href="" hidden></a> <script> visible.addEventListener('click', a => { a.preventDefault(); hidden.href = a.target.href + '?utm_source=me_lol'; hidden.click(); return false; }) </script>
No technology is evil. They way it is used definitely can be.
I personally beg to differ. You can think of things like hostile architecture, automated killing tools, etc.
The way we design tools is inherently biased. You wouldn’t use a gun for cooking, you use it for it’s intended purpose of possibly harming other beings.
A tool is not a technology. A tool is derived from technology.
Architecture is the technology, it can be used both for spikes under bridges or access ramps for wheelchairs. Chemistry can be used to produce explosives to accelerate bullets or clear paths.
Also, guns can be used to defend against an invading enemy. I wouldn’t consider self-defence to be evil. Being the invading enemy, that’s evil.
I’m talking about the design of the tool. It’s use is different. Tools do what they’re designed to do. If a tool is designed to kill people it’ll do just that.
Sure, but I guess that then changes the question to “is it evil to kill people?”, which I’d say depends on the context.
Hostile architecture is a great example! It’s used to make those spiky panels to discourage people from trespassing on railways. Their introduction led to a vast reduction in deaths of people getting hit by trains (even though it’s still possible to traverse them)
I’m not saying there aren’t uses for it but it’s basically a “I don’t want to see poor people around” technology made manifest. Also, aren’t there better versions? I remember that metros can have doorways that impede going onto the tracks without the need of spikes.
How is it “basically” that if there are prominent examples of other uses? Another use is to prevent public urination. (And no, just providing toilets does not prevent it…)
I don’t know what you’re imagining, but I’m not taking about metros, rather regular trains. But regardless, if you think about it, the existence of alternatives doesn’t make a difference to what I’m saying.
And the existence of alternative uses doesn’t take away the pain of someone who needs to sit on a bench and can’t. The ringing noise that only teenagers hear on public parks because the council doesn’t want them there. Alternative uses of a bad technology do not redeem a technology.
The statement you objected to is:
No technology is evil. They way it is used definitely can be.
If hostile architecture is evil, then hostile architecture used to reduce suicides is evil.
It is fair to judge a technology by the totality of outcomes it produces. You might find a subset of the technology that may be positive but you can’t use a part of it to justify the whole.
It really reminded me of this image.
A partial perception of a technology might blind us to the overall net benefit.
Death would be too good for him.
