{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://www.jacky.wtf//essays/2024/rethinking-the-approach",
  "description": "Thoughts on how I try to approach a decolonialist lens to working in the tech industry, what's worked (and hasn't) and what I want to do going forward.\n",
  "path": "/essays/2024/rethinking-the-approach",
  "publishedAt": "2024-08-19T15:00:00.000Z",
  "site": "at://did:plc:e2ctbutx6kya6si4if5ngjmm/site.standard.publication/3mniussyp2d2g",
  "textContent": "The Personal\nSome time after working for Glitch, I've come to realize that I had a different relationship\nwith the social aspects of the nascent American web tech sphere. The Google Photos debacle put\nme into a more \"public\" light that, [nearly a decade later][1], has become less relevant since generative AI,\namong other things, has taken many visible corners of the industry by storm. I didn't get \"media training\"\non how to engage things like understanding [digital colonialism][2]. That would have taught me that it's\neffectively _taboo_: instead, you take the money given you to by the venture capital firms,\nyou do the dance and you go home. There's _some_ inklings of the conversation that's become safer to speak on;\nbut as with many other things, it came after _years_ of demonstrated (and preventable) violence\nfor it to be worthy of a discussion point. Organizations have come to exist like [DAIR][3] and [The\nAlgorithmic Justice League][4] that work to actively combat, if not slow down, the inherently cooked\nin bias and violence that mirrors (and fuels) what we saw running across the country from 2015 to\n2022, with protests in the United States and abroad about police violence. It led to people even\nwanting to champion diversity and inclusion as core tenants of their organizations. But now that's\nfizzled out, even before the ramping down of funding from these groups and have devolved into what\nI might call a \"conference grab\". Sometimes you see it take the shape of online classes that, at\ntimes, mirror what you find in a book at your local library. What seemed to be a space that was\ncapable of centering people has now become something that works to maintain the brand of those who\nwork for companies that either directly engage in digital colonialism or work to support those kind\nof organizations. My disappointment with how things went down is how _quickly_ folks seem to have\naccepted no concrete action from these organizations as these issues are still relevant to this\nday.\n\nI've posted a lot about Apple, after reading books like [The One Device][5] and [Dying for an\niPhone][6] which confirmed my fears of the multinational and opened my eyes to the _collaborative\neffort_ between state governments and private enterprise in the decimation of the global South.\nSince GitHub's CEO defended their support of the Bush-era domestic human kidnapping and separation\nprogram, my profile on their site has [highlighted my dissent][7] in having to use that platform. I\ntry to work around having to use these systems directly unless I'm forced to do so for survival\n(work). I do my best to make use of and advocate for the systems that I find myself defending\nthe use of. I can't \"preach\" one thing without practicing another. What I didn't realize is that the\nbranded tech industry has no issue with the parroting of a narrative for the purpose of posturing.\nAnd I fell for _a lot_ of what people sold.\n\nA good number of folks that I used to engage with early on are people I either have fallen out of\ntouch with, have had disputes that led to serious ruptures or have effectively drifted approach due\nto ideological differences. What I think my failing was, in most cases, not being more candid about\nwho and what I stood for _outside_ of technology. For some, it's purely a means of gaining social\nsecurity. It might have been something folks did in school, grabbed an internship somewhere and\nkept running with until they were netting salaries and compensation that put them in the top 20% of\nearners in the United States. Using words like _capitalist_ or even _class_ led to some reactions I\ndidn't expect and at times reminded me that, for most folks engaging me, I was a [software engineer\n_first_][8] and a whole person second. And now with my recent focus in helping with the resurgance\nof building worker power within the salaried tech industry; I've found myself effectively\n_pushed out_ from the social and professional facets of the spaces I used to exist in.\n\nI don't know what to do about that. Do I have to _start over_? In a way, I already have, with the\ncommunities I've grown in thanks to organizing. But I'm realizing that folks didn't really see me as\na person for a long time. Nothing that I've mentioned about the difficulties I had at the places I\nworked at (like battling racism at Lyft or struggling to position myself as a contractor) seemed to\nhave mentioned to people who've chosen to align themselves more tightly to things I thought they'd\nhave second thoughts on. Is it me that was misaligned or did I misread people? This is something I\ncan spin around for months, especially as I'm looking for work in one of the worst downturns of the\nindustry. But as I'm learning, that'll do nothing but keep myself frozen in place.\n\nThe things I've wanted to push weren't Money Making Machines. They didn't involve the FIRE-esque\nlogic that folks tend to endorse. In fact, a lot of it would have required folks to invest in people\nthat they couldn't make a profit from. Ironically, as a lapsed Seventh Day Adventist, the idea of\nworking to make the lives of folks who have less was something I clung to and thought that\nfolks who championed the idea of lifting other people up would be into. It's safe to say that it's\nnot the case at all. In fact, what gets the attention of folks when I poke into some spaces is what\nthings could one make quickly to make money; effectively a means of a \"digital flip\" of sorts.\nContent creation is something I want to expand on and I'm reading [something about influncers][9]\nbut I do believe it's played a _huge role_ into this. I could be also a bit jaded from the swiftness\nof distance some folks have put. I'm not absolving myself of having a brash personality on some\npoints: I don't make it a point to disagree on things that are of importance. I found it easier to\njust leave these spaces.\n\nIt's been a lot of spaces I've chosen to leave. So far, I've kept this post more about the interpersonal\nstress of keeping my stances authentic to what I do. I did that in reflection of how I've also\nchosen to go. I've accepted many instances of mistakes that I've made over time; thinking that had\nto evolve, unlearning and learning and making amends. But that still leaves me with this odd _void_\nof sorts. Folks are in different places in their lives and now I come off as an \"angry Black\ncommunist that runs Linux\". My laptop is coated with stickers that scream \"give people money and\nstop spending money on war\". My bag has pins of multiple union groups all covering the branded\nGlitch fish logo on it. This is who I am and who I chose to be. And I am comfortable with it. I\ndidn't expect it to be so much of an issue to _want_ a different world.\n\nThe Current\nWith that preamble, I can go into what I've done so far. It's been a mix of \"info dumping\" and\n\"preaching\". I use quotes here because this is how they've been described to me when I relay them\nback. \"Info dumping\" has been the moniker used when I provide information or links to things that\nsupport stances or bring light to situations that demonstrate a need for a change in opinion. I try\nto keep them in the same cadence that one would bring other things as to not to overwhelm. What I\ndidn't realize in spaces is that it's never about the quantity but the quality. If it's not coming\nfrom a place like MSNBC, Axios, AP or one of the \"accredited\" news stations; it's not worth scoping\nout. If it challenges deep seated opinions too much, it's not credible. I found this to be such a\nwall when talking to folks. That led me to try to read into the nature of media and conformity.\nJared A. Bell has [a book][10] that I've found extremely insightful to the dilemma of the\n(unintentionally) right-moderate tech worker, the normative state of most high-wage tech workers.\nThe title _alone_ was too much for folks to even consider parsing, I found, so it never went far.\nMedia like [The Internet's Own Boy][11] wasn't Sundance-y for these folks so it never passed the\n\"I'll watch it in a month\" test. Folks could queue up talks from DHH or from Google I/O;\nthings more relevant to job security, which is understandable but disappointing.\n\nThe Next\nWhat I think I'm going to try to do (and what I'm playing with continuing) is break a bit from the\nmold. Instead of trying to be a broadcaster of \"bad news\" directly, I'm going to continue\nwriting longer form things _here_. The tech industry and the people most \"visible\" in it embrace the\npath of a distinguished journeyman. It's the image of a solo craftsperson but one that's built it on the\nwork of many, sometimes thousands (looking at open source as a fine example). This means I'll be\ncontinuing to talk about these topics but folding them into my web of notes and research to show the\nrelevant bits, but for those who _willingly_ want to learn. What I've learned from Transformative\nJustice is that in order to engage in it, _everyone_ has to want to participate. I can't convince\nfolks who run the venture firm for Google Ventures to reconsider the role that their portfolio has\nin genocide because they make returns on it; the values are too far gone to make it worthwhile.\nInstead, I have to focus on folks who are _already curious_ and give them language and material that\nthey can bring back. There's no point talking to folks who are _so_ bought in to such ecosystems and\nhave sunk decades into the Apple ecosystem (for example). By explictly paying for more and more,\nwe validate their commercial interest, especially as people who have larger voices in the shaping\nof technology. We inherently _market_ their ideology as our own and reify everything else that goes\nwith it. This is, in short, to say, that while your opinions might be yours; your behaviors and\naccess is shaped _by them_. I want to work with and talk to people who _fully_ understand what people\nare capable of. I've wasted more than five years pounding bricks with people who believe that\nthey have more in common with Eric Schmidt and members of the PayPal mafia. When in fact, they\nhave more issues in common with the people they step over at Civic Center BART Station in San\nFrancisco or by Port Authority in New York. Why would they see themselves as peers; they have\n\"good health insurance\".\n\nDoes this mean I have to make art? What kind of audience would actually be moved enough by it? Could\nI get by? The thing that pollutes my ability to find something that resonates with me is my current\need to get by. I know that once I'm working a third of the day, I lose my ability to focus time in a\nway I might find productive. But people have managed to do a tremendous amount with less, and it\ndidn't happen in a day (or night). I think I have to hunker down, at least from the angle of\ntechnology, and continue writing, ideally in long-form, my reflections with evidence and continue to\nwork on things that defend the ideas I'd want to see to come into the world. This means exploring\nmore examples of communal systems that operate without needing to (heavily) rely on the Big 3 for\n\"cloud computing\". This includes fighting against the idea that digital \"rentier\" capitalism is the\n_best_ that we can do.\n\nWhat hits me is that I wanted the folks that once called me \"smart\" to actually _mean_ it but it\nwasn't really authentic. I think it came with the space; if you're a coder, you're assumed to be so.\nI never liked the label and I reject it a lot, unless it's tied to something that demonstrates\nwhy it's used. So far, I can only think of a few times where I managed to prove this and they were\nall around organizing efforts. Spaces where I couldn't look it up or read the source but I had to\nactually think _hard_ and do research, versus stepping through print statements or a debugger. I\nnever planned or wanted to be a \"smart programmer\" but I do want to be a capable organizer.\n\nFiguring out how to be a better one within the realm of technology is going to require a lot of\njumps. For one, I'm aiming to bring myself to more organizing spaces, like the one [Tech Worker\nCoalition and Collective Action in Tech][12] are putting on in about two months in California. I had\nthe honor of delivering a keynote to the East Coast version about the notion of control that we\nconsent to in the workplace and how that robs us of agency. I wrote for a magazine my observing\nexperience of the will of people who, once understanding this control and its grasp, [fought for more\nagency over their lives at work][13]. I wrestle with the idea of writing as a tool of organizing\nbecause it requires folks to commit to _reading_; which, for my \"generation\", has been slowly\nreducing to Instagram squares of text that people can't even source or check (ignoring TikTok and\nSnapchat). Reading and writing isn't \"enough\".\n\nMore precisely, it doesn't _move_ people in the way that something like tangible direct action could.\nIt could _inspire_ people towards it; hence the history of literature being contraband when made widely\navailable. But I personally believe that, with the Internet and in turn, corporate social media,\nthis has been rendered moot. Facebook and Google do engage in a level of cenorship by way of opaque\nalgorithmic ranking and since this is considered a feature, not a bug; it's not possible to\nhelp nudge people to be more viligant about what and how things appear in front of them. Using the\nInternet as a primary means of organizing and liberation is engaging the pseduo-viable idea that\nthe tools that build it can take it down. This line of thinking is what I have contention with\nthe idea of domain names at [the center of Internet soverenity][14]. This propels me to look at\n\"decentralized\" solutions that _could_ work over the Internet stack but don't have to. None of\nthat works, however, to help folks _demand_ better working conditions. For some, folks are\n_so_ well off, it doesn't really matter that 10% of their company got laid off. Maybe they'll\nstay in touch if they were ambicle but rarely can you see public displays of _material_ support.\nThat kind of behavior would put the professional managerial class in companies (directors, upper\nmanagers and the like) in an awkward social position (but that's usually a fleeing point).\n\nAt a certain point, my thinking on what to do begins to turn into trying to understand how folks can\ndevelop the false emotion of apathy. I understand it from the migrant perspective, in a need to\nperserve themselves as it's already made to be difficult to support oneself. But for those who can\nthrow $5,000 USD at an angel investment where they see workers in precarious situation needing $100,\nI don't get it. American influences are deeply intertwined into tech culture and one of those is the\nnotion that success and failure is cultivated individually. It's _their_ fault for losing their job.\nIt's _their_ fault that they're homeless. It's _their_ fault that they've been laid off. That morphs\ninto a form of self-righteousness that reminds me of the metaphorical bricks I've welted my knuckles\nagainst. And it's _worse_ within kin circles, in my observation. The need to \"get the bag\" means\nyou'll also use that bag to beat anyone who gets in your way; unless they can also provide you with\nmore to put in your bag. Where does this lean me?\n\nThe Exit?\nI realize that I'm asking for too much from folks at times. I'm coming to the realization that most\nfolks _will not agree_ that people need to have basic needs met. And that scares me. As, in the\nUnited States, as much as we like to talk about progress, 11.5% of the country is poor, according to\nthe government's approach. But a grassroot coilation group that followed the ideals of America's\nmost hated-turned-loved-and-on-every-Black-neighborhood-boulevard Negro of uniting the bottom\nclasses has noted that this percentage is _way too low_. We're closer to _140 million_ people being\npoor or low-income. This number defends and supports why gig work, digital influencers and so many\nother forms of \"side hustle\" jobs have grown to be, especially when corporate America makes it so\nhard to work. Folks in the tech industry, as long as they remain in the castle of silicon _do not\nsee this_ (or just choose not to; again using the Protestant ideals of individual failure and\nrevival). I want more folks to understand that we work on systems that both contribute and control\nhow this work and that if we don't act, we will be next. With 80,000 workers laid off over the\nlast few years in the tech industry and more to come as stock buybacks and the need for growth of corporate\nprofit remains corporate policy, I don't understand the _fear_. We speak so _much_ about strength,\nabout performance, about resiliency, but is that only allocated to machines? I can't imagine that we\nare truly _this_ frightened.\n\nThere's a notion in some (Marxist) circles that the poor are kept poor as to keep workers motivated\nfrom defying the status quo. In the tech industry, this is _glaringly_ obvious, especially on social\nmedia as, save a few rag-to-RSU stories, people do not talk about the impact of their work beyond\nwhat it provides business. For spaces that are meant to foster human connection, I see this as the\nwall: it's already a non-starter to even talk on these concepts. Even outside of class, racism,\nsexism, transphobia and xenophobia are the policing guard rails on what people _can_ and _cannot_\nsay online. It's in poor taste to talk about racism at companies _unless_ it's a story of survival,\nthen it can be made to make one into a \"model\" of persistence, with no call to action to have these\norganizations change outside of hiring a consultant (who doesn't even have much authority to make\nchange; they're not on the board nor in the executive suite, they're on payroll). Sexism is why we\n_still_ see high levels of turn over for women and femme folks in the industry, despite the literal\nexistence of the industry being based on their labor. The term _debugging_ came from a woman! A\ntrans woman gave us the voice of Siri! The industry aligns tightly with the iconography and\nmentality of the financial sector (as made clear with Sheryl Sandberg's lean in philospohy of work)\nand there's no real room for anything else.\n\nIs it me, then? Am I doing \"too much\"? Am I asking for more than people can _care_ about? Is it that\nit's too dangerous to consider these ideas, even in semi-private spaces? Regardless of the first\nquestion, I won't stop working to close this gap and I'm hoping that I can join other folks who've\nbeen doing this for longer - some of which I'm lucky to lean on for support. This is hopefully a way\nto give those on the fence or who've been confused a peak inside my mind, where I'm at and why I\n_won't_ stop talking about the things that I do. We need to do better.\n\n[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/technology/ai-photo-labels-google-apple.html\n[2]: https://roarmag.org/essays/digital-colonialism-the-evolution-of-american-empire/\n[3]: https://www.dair-institute.org/\n[4]: https://www.ajl.org/\n[5]: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL26370625M/The_one_device\n[6]: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL29830468M/Dying_for_an_IPhone\n[7]: https://github.com/jalcine\n[8]: /essays/2024/regrets-with-tech/\n[9]: https://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780691234076\n[10]: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-myth-and-propaganda-of-black-buying-power-media-race-economics-2023-jared-a-ball/19643815?ean=9783031265488\n[11]: http://www.takepart.com/internets-own-boy\n[12]: https://techworkerscoalition.org/circuit-breakers/\n[13]: https://www.kernelmag.io/4/labor-luck\n[14]: /essays/question-domain-names/",
  "title": "The Wrong Ideas"
}