> Step one is that all of us blue collar technologists need to get organized

So that Apple and Google can discriminate against us as a bloc, instead of individually?

As a programmer I struggle to see how organization would achieve anything. We hold no cards, it's the platform holders who won.

▲

vrganj 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Who builds and maintains the platforms?

Labor is entitled to all it creates.

▲

bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Greedy, unprincipled sycophants?

Google and Microsoft employees already tolerate terrible software and immoral contract deals. It's not like you can count on them growing a conscience over working for an evil company.

	▲	AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s correct and the percentage of those people seems to be going down but hey maybe I’m totally wrong and the number of synchophants and boot lickers who work in tech is going up

▲

bayarearefugee 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Organizing years ago would have been huge for software developers but unfortunately I do think it is too late now, given the onset of AI (weakens the collective by improving individual productivity since not every developer will be onboard) and just the current political landscape. The NLRB has been gutted.

	▲	pasquinelli 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The NLRB has been gutted. there was a before the nlrb and there were unions then. would you expect union organizers for a tech workers union to be assassinated? would you expect members of a tech workers union to be gunned down en masse? if no, then the political landscape has been so much worse than now, and unions have managed to form.

▲

pasquinelli 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is so funny for me to read. a few years ago, i would see programmers saying they can negotiate better deals for themselves than a union could. now you're saying it's already over, programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero.

i advise against being so sure of your ideas. maybe you think platform holders have all the cards--test it. if they fight efforts to unionize, that tells a different story.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Individuals can negotiate insane labors deals for themselves. Go ask the best-paid person you know how they got their pay package, it usually entails some form of schmoozing. Unions are for bringing the bottom-rung up to par, not for raising the top bar further.

> if they fight efforts to unionize, that tells a different story.

You are describing an industry that has outsourced intelligent labor to India and Pakistan for more than 25 years. The efforts to unionize would be like trying to save America's auto industry in 2004.

	▲	pasquinelli 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		i'm saying test it, let's get scientific. why would you have a problem with that?
	▲	rexpop 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

rexpop 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fatalistic view that "platform holders have all the cards" and that "programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero" is a common psychological barrier in labor struggles. Oppressed or subordinate groups often suffer from a "diffuse, magical belief in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor"[0].

However, theories of political and social power argue the exact opposite: the power of any ruling class or corporation is actually quite fragile because it depends entirely on the cooperation, obedience, and skills of its subordinates. If highly skilled individuals like blue-collar technologists and programmers collectively withdraw our human resources, skills, and knowledge, we can severely disrupt or paralyze the systems that enrich the platform holders.

0. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire

	▲	bigyabai an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If highly skilled individuals like blue-collar technologists and programmers collectively withdraw our human resources Individuals cannot convince the Subway app, Raycast or LastPass to defect from Apple or Google's platforms. Using those platforms is an executive decision, and Senior iOS/Android engineers will not voice this minority concern or risk their job to advocate for it. Similarly, Apple and Google's platform monopolies are not designed by individual engineers, but executives that will happily pay to replace you if you feel morally unjust. The only place where this could work is indie development, since that's the scale where developers have authority to sabotage themselves. And sabotage themselves they would - it would be like Fortnite's removal from the App Store except with ~100,000 times less public outcry. You'd go bankrupt before ever inspiring change on the platform. Nothing about the technology changed, indie developers have long warned users to not give their OEM control over what they can install. But users don't really care, businesses told them the App Store is "safer" before they ever got to see the alternative.
	▲	AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well said!
	▲	guzfip an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

AndrewKemendo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not here to argue with you

If you believe you are incapable of actually doing anything then you are correct, and you should just go ahead and submit yourself to whatever power structure you think will benefit you the most

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course you're not here to argue, there's no precedent for what you're suggesting. Nobody has fought against Apple, Google or Microsoft and taken home a significant victory.

This leads me to believe that the power structures can't be fixed. There is no amount of protesting that can coerce private capital to take humanity's best interests to heart, that's the tragedy of the commons. There is no guerilla warfare you can wage on a totalitarian platform like iOS or Windows; you simply lose in the end, because you are malware and the OEM is always right.

Movements like GNU/FOSS win because they don't even acknowledge the existence of corporate technology. They don't "fight" against anyone or make multi-billion dollar nemeses because it is a waste of volunteer hours that could go towards building something wonderful.

▲

rexpop an hour ago | parent [-]

Your belief that "power structures can't be fixed" perfectly illustrates what educator Paulo Freire described as the oppressed having a "diffuse, magical belief in the invulnerability and power of the oppressor". Anthropologist David Graeber noted that modern capitalism has constructed a vast bureaucratic apparatus "designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures" and to ensure that challenging existing power arrangements seems like an "idle fantasy". The idea that the platform holder holds all the cards is an ideological tool used to encourage passivity and convince you that your only option is to submit.

As James C. Scott demonstrates in his analysis of authoritarian systems, any formally organized, rigidly planned system is ultimately parasitic on the informal, unscripted practices (which he calls mētis) of the people within it. A closed system cannot survive on its own rigid rules; it requires the constant, active cooperation and practical know-how of its subjects to function.

Gene Sharp's foundational theory of power echoes this: no regime, corporation, or totalitarian system possesses inherent power. Their power derives entirely from the cooperation, obedience, and skills of the people they govern or employ. If blue-collar technologists, developers, and users collectively withdraw their skills, labor, and cooperation, even the most monolithic tech empire can be paralyzed. The power of the OEM is not absolute; it is entirely contingent on your continued participation.

You point to the GNU/FOSS movements as successful because they ignore corporate nemesis-building and instead focus their volunteer hours on creating "something wonderful."

In the study of nonviolent struggle, building alternative social institutions and alternative communication systems are indeed recognized and highly effective methods of intervention. Furthermore, creating "commons" (like open-source software) is crucial because it provides a practical model for a non-commercial way of life.

However, building alternative commons is not a substitute for directly challenging power. As Silvia Federici argues, creating commons must be seen as a complement to the struggle against capital, not an alternative to it. If you only build wonderful alternatives without contesting the power of private capital, your creations remain vulnerable to being enclosed, commodified, or crushed by the very monopolies you are trying to ignore.

Ignoring the oppressor does not make them disappear. If technologists want to reclaim power, the first step is to reject the neoliberal fatalism that views the current corporate dominance as an unchangeable law of nature. Power concedes nothing without a demand, and the limits of tech monopolies are prescribed entirely by the endurance of the people who build and use them.

	▲	bigyabai 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oppressors are not a monoculture. Sometimes they are extremely entrenched, sometimes they are fragile like a teacup. Sometimes they seek decelerationist and traditionalist narratives, while others seek accelerationist and neoliberal ideals. Outlining "oppression" as a dialectical certainty is why revolutionary politics die in the cradle while capitalism has Billions Served written under the sign. Reality is convoluted, and politics are not a computer that transist from "populist" to "authoritarian" depending on the program you run. Plenty of revolutionary history has taught us that. Framing Apple, Google or Microsoft in this manner is counterproductive and does not produce any serious roadmap to undermine their behavior. The will to change has to come from the top, or else it will never be conclusively realized or codified. Change has to be genuine and desirable, or else someone else will come along to copy FAANG and take their place. This is why regulation provoked such a strong anti-intervention sentiment from businesses; it works. A USB-C iPhone was inevitable, but only once you changed incentive to punish lock-in. On oppression's flip side, one could argue that the continued success of businesses like IBM provides precedent for private capital to aid and abet mass atrocities without ever facing real punishment. Internal revolution has never produced results in these circumstances, and I don't think it ever will. You can't rely on mushy-gushy feelings to make people do what's right, you have to lay down the law in black-and-white.