I read the article and sadly I think the author missed a key thing that is going on.

Yes, there are few people who created cyberdecks as a counter-culture, anti-company tool (which is a lot of what the author argues).

But some of the newer ones they highlight are nothing more than engagement farming reels. They are the very definition of the opposite of what the author writes here:

> We want to escape the algorithmic plantations that tech companies have herded us into.

I don't know of they fail to see this because they are blinded by their hope or there is a more complex viewpoint I'm missing.

▲

sandcat_ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Are you sure this isn’t just because it’s the “wrong” people who are building them? Instead of the typical (older) FOSS/geek/whatever crowd?

It feels overly negative to me. People, mostly younger people, are building them, tinkering with them and are excited to post about them. Is it any surprise they’re doing so on TikTok or wherever? Yes, it’s a little ironic considering the anti-big-tech vibes mentioned in the article, but is it any different from when our lot were posting to Google+ etc?

I don’t know, this feels like a good thing to me, and something we should encourage. The more people playing and experimenting with tech rather than passively consuming the better.

If I was a teenager again today I like to think I’d be hacking one of these together.

	▲	nl 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Hmm perhaps you are right. I think I'd over indexed on the unfinished look of some of them, but relooking at them as prototypes instead of the level of the original set makes them seem more reasonable.

▲

edgarvaldes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agree. Any hobby can become superficial content for Instagram, especially if your only or main source of information is online channels. But real communities exist, and you need to be in the real world to experience them firsthand.

	▲	nl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not arguing that real communities don't exist! I'm arguing that the author's main point is based on the Instagram posts, and this is invalid.

▲

chongli an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know of they fail to see this because they are blinded by their hope or there is a more complex viewpoint I'm missing.

There is. "We want to escape" is a very different viewpoint from "we want to liberate the masses."

Freeing yourself from the social media is definitely doable. Depending on how firmly engaged you are at the moment, it can vary in difficulty between fait accompli and moderately challenging. It's obviously possible for anyone to do themselves.

Liberating the masses? Morpheus said it best:

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

	▲	nl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> "We want to escape" is a very different viewpoint from "we want to liberate the masses." I don't think this is a point the author spoke about at all. To crudely summarize what I think their claim is: Cyberdecks are an anti-big tech creation. They are spreading outside traditional hackers and the proof is these reels. My claim is that cyberdecks are not spreading, and instead those reels is just evidence that (a) people will mine all subcultures for topics that they can create views from and (b) the author themselves is enabling this behavior.