Nobody asked me, but here they are anyway. A short list of suggestions and clarifications for pundits, journalists, bloggers, and assorted scribblers who write about technology, in no particular order …
1. Don’t be a Borg. The development, deployment, and adoption of any given technology does not unfold independently of human action.
2. Do not cite apparent historical parallels to contemporary concerns about technology as if they invalidated those concerns. That people before us experienced similar problems does not mean that they magically cease being problems today.
3. Do not deify technology or assign salvific powers to Technology.
4. When someone criticizes a specific technology without renouncing all other forms of technology, they are not being hypocritical–they are thinking.
“I believe that you must appreciate technology just like art. You wouldn’t tell an art
connoisseur that he can’t prefer abstractionism to expressionism. To love is to choose. And today, we’re losing this. Love has become an obligation.” (Paul Virilio)
5. Relatedly, the observation that human beings have always used technology is not a cogent response to the criticism of particular technologies. The use of a pencil does not entail my endorsement of genetic engineering.
6. Don’t grant technology independent or sufficient causal force. Consequences follow from the use of technology, but causality is usually complex and distributed.
7. If you begin by claiming, hyperbolically, that a given technology is revolutionary, thereafter responding to critics by assuring them that nothing has changed is disingenuous at best. If something is completely different, it can’t also be exactly the same.
8. It is banal to observe that a given technology may be used for both good or evil; this does not mean that the technology in question is neutral.
9. Use the word technology circumspectly. It can function as an abstraction harboring all sorts of false assumptions and logical fallacies.
10. That people eventually acclimate to changes precipitated by the advent of a new technology does not prove that the changes were inconsequential or benign.
These are, of course, otherwise known as Sacasas’ pet peeves. You may take them accordingly.
Sign up for The Convivial Society, my newsletter about technology and society, here.
L.M. Sacasas 
This is fantastic.
In a class, I encouraged one student to pursue a career as a technology writer because his papers showed not only an interest in technology but also that he was very good and thoughtful about writing about it. I wish I could have passed this along with it.
Very good, Mike.
Reblogged this on Dont Ask Me I’m No Expert and commented:
Exceedingly interesting.
Michael:
Lots of good advice here. I think tech scholars and pundits of all dispositions would be wise to follow your recommendations. But let me offer some friendly pushback on points #2 & #10, because I spend much of my time thinking and writing about those very things.
In those two recommendations you say that those who write about technology “[should] not cite apparent historical parallels to contemporary concerns about technology as if they invalidated those concerns. That people before us experienced similar problems does not mean that they magically cease being problems today.” And you also warn “That people eventually acclimate to changes precipitated by the advent of a new technology does not prove that the changes were inconsequential or benign.”
I think these two recommendations are born of a certain frustration with the tenor of much modern technology writing; the sort of Pollyanna-ish writing that too casually dismisses legitimate concerns about the technological disruptions and usually ends with the insulting phrase, “just get over it.” Such writing and punditry is rarely helpful, and you and others have rightly pointed out the deficiencies in that approach.
That being said, I believe it would be highly unfortunate to dismiss any inquiry into the nature of individual and societal acclimation to technological change. Because adaptation obviously does happen! Certainly there must be much we can learn from it. In particular, what I hope to better understand is the process by which we humans have again and again figured out how to assimilate new technologies into their lives despite how much those technologies “unsettled” well-established personal, social, cultural, and legal norms.
To be clear, I entirely agree with your admonition: “That people eventually acclimate to changes precipitated by the advent of a new technology does not prove that the changes were inconsequential or benign.” But, again, we can agree at least agree that such acclimation has happened regularly throughout human history, right? What were the mechanics of that process? As social norms, personal habits, and human relationships were disrupted, what helped us muddle through and find a way of coping with new technologies? Likewise, as existing markets and business models were disrupted, how were new ones formulated in response to the given technological disruption? Finally, how did legal norms and institutions adjust to those same changes?
I know you agree that these questions are worthy of exploration, but I suppose where we might part ways is over the question of the metrics by which judge whether “the changes were inconsequential or benign.” Because I believe that while technological change often brings sweeping and quite consequential change, **there is a value in the very act of living through it.**
In my work, including my latest little book, I argue that humans have exhibited the uncanny ability to adapt to changes in their environment, bounce back from adversity, and learn to be resilient over time. A great deal of wisdom is born of experience, including experiences that involve risk and the possibility of occasional mistakes and failures while both developing new technologies and learning how to live with them. I believe it wise to continue to be open to new forms of innovation and technological change, however, not only because it provides breathing space for future entrepreneurialism and invention, but also because it provides an opportunity to see how societal attitudes toward new technologies evolve — and to learn from it. More often than not, I argue, citizens have found ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes.
Even if you don’t agree with all of that, again, I would think you would find great value in studying the process by which such adaptation happens. And then we could argue about whether it was all really worth it! Alas, at the end of the day, it may be that we won’t be able to even agree on a standard by which to make that judgment and will instead have to settle for a rough truce about what history has to teach us that might be summed up by the phrase: “something gained, something lost.”
With all this in mind, let me suggest this friendly reformulation of your second recommendation: Tech writers should not cite apparent historical parallels to contemporary concerns about technology as if they invalidated those concerns. That people before us experienced similar problems does not mean that they magically cease being problems today. **But how people and institutions learned to cope with those concerns is worthy of serious investigation. And what we learned from living through that process may be valuable in its own right.**
I have been trying to sketch out an essay on all this entitled, “Muddling Through: Toward a Theory of Societal Adaptation to Disruptive Technologies.” I am borrowing that phrase (“muddling through”) from Joel Garreau, who used it in his book “Radical Evolution” when describing a third way of viewing humanity’s response to technological change. After discussing the “Heaven” (optimistic) and “Hell” (skeptical or pessimistic) scenarios cast about by countless tech writers throughout history, Garreau outlines a third, and more pragmatic “Prevail” option, which views history “as a remarkably effective paean to the power of humans to muddle through extraordinary circumstances.” That pretty much sums up my own perspective on things, but much study remains to be done on how that very messy process of “muddling through” works and whether we are left better off as a result. I remain optimistic that we do!
As always, I look forward to our continuing dialog over these interesting issues and I wish you all the best.
Cheers,
Adam Thierer
Adam,
I decided to make a new post out of my reply, here it is:
You basically say that society adapts itself. This is a very high view point of not much use beyond expressing that you are an optimist. Because someone has to do it! Adaptation is an active process. After witnessing NSA scandal and corporate Big Data risk assessing it’s clear where unregulated technology is heading. This is what you get if you let technology just happen.
“humans have exhibited the uncanny ability to adapt to changes in their environment, bounce back from adversity, and learn to be resilient over time.”
That I can “adapt” to having my leg cut off (by making crutches, by fashioning a replacement, by learning to get really good at hopping on one foot) does not mean that having my leg cut off was a desirable change and that I’m better off for it.
I have a passion for both technology and writing. I thought it would be easy to do some tech writing for extra money but it proved to be more challenging than I thought. Now my two favorite interests are separated – I write stories in my spare time and work in the tech field.
Reblogged this on My WordPress Notepad.
Instantly amazed with all the useful information that is on it for technology writers…they should follow these tips during writing about any technology so that people can know all relevant information about it and want to adopt the technology…thanks for sharing your thoughts.