They’re not defining “middleman” in the traditional sense of an intermediary in an economic exchange. The first panel introduces a new definition of the term as a tech bro attempting to insinuate himself into the process of communicating with others. The remedies offered would indeed seem to preclude this type of middleman from interfering with the process.

lol.

To rile you up a bit, I wish I could say it is a subjective thing but 4:3 is the better option for laptops.

More vertical screen estate, given one would mostly be doing their reading, writing and browsing – activities that are traditionally vertically oriented.

Even most websites just centre their content and leave behind swathes of white/empty space on both sides.

Anything beyond those activities, one should be using a bigger screen (desktop or a TV)^^^.

Jokes(?) apart, Framework laptops are the best option for folks like us as it ticks the most boxes. But it is not available in the country where I live, and I don’t want to import it as it would be meaningless without its broader ecosystem. FWIW, I have dropped them emails every year requesting them to expand their presence in more countries.

Till then, old ThinkPads. They are cheap, have enough spare parts on the market even after almost 2 decades, and even come with the kind of keyboards and screens that I like.

---

^^^This, unlike the text above it, is a subjective thing

::: spoiler P.S.
I always wanted to use superscript, subscript and horizontal line. Thanks to you, I got to use 2/3.
:::

Cutting out the middle man does not involve technologically regressing.

Cutting out the middle man means stepping up and learning how the tech you use in your daily lives actually works. The only reason some tech bro can step in and ruin your life is if you let them keep you ignorant through convenience.

You want to cut out the middle man? Use, and support, open source. Fight to make everything that requires a server, be a server that you own in your own home (or is federated and in your local community). Use, and support, repairable technology... And actually repair your technology!

There is no lack of available parts for my 21 year old Chevy.

does not involve technologically regressing.

The fallacy that technological progress is inherently good is simply flawed. You could say "instead of relying on Spotify, and instead of "technologically regressing", learn open source alternatives and host your own Jellyfin server!"

But what was wrong with "technologically regressing" exactly? A MP3, CD or even tape recording player will: always work, sound great, require zero user friction, never receive updates or security flaws, not depend on a convoluted self hosted setup.

Do you want to listen to music or impress Lemmy? There's absolutely no argument to be made that requires accepting all tech simply because it's tech.

Yes: We need structural remedies, not individuals opting out. But please tell me what your implied “gotcha” is supposed to be.

Technological progress isn't inherently anything. It's just technological progress; an inevitability. Fighting against it is like fighting the laws of the universe, if not outright stupidly phobic.

What defines the "goodness" of technology is how people choose to use it.

Everything more said is just pointless philosophical fluff.

That was made this century. To go uncomputerized, we need to be looking at the 80s and back.

Technological progress isn’t inherently anything

Exactly. So arguing that "you shouldn't technologically regress" is meaningless.

Fighting against it is like fighting the laws of the universe

Not only is this not applicable to the argument at hand, given there's no law of nature that makes a CD player implode just because Spotify exists, but this statement is so bizarrely wrong it's almost hard to take the rest of the discussion seriously.

It's also a fallacy that technology always progresses. If technology from 25 years ago serves you better than technology from today, it's the superior technology.

The morality of a technology is determined by those in control of it, and look who's in control today.

Exactly.

That's just false, and is also not the message of the article you linked.

The articles point is not that avoiding enshittification won't make a difference in the amount of enshittification you experience: To the contrary, it affirms that it likely will! The articles point is that personally avoiding enshittification isn't an effective way of combatting the ubiquity of enshittification in society, ie "consumer activism" and "voting with your dollars" cannot create system change.

Most everyone here already knows this, and I imagine you also understood the article just fine and don't need me explaining it to you, but you botched the paraphrase in your link thus seeding a lot of potential confusion and frustration absent some clarification. This is intentionally a thread about personally avoiding enshittification, and that does not imply a rejection of the desire to also end it oestebsibly by other means.

Oh look. Lol Amish 2.0

No they wouldn't. All of those products involve middlemen servicing content.

They are too lazy for that.

How about struggling but still extant written internet journalists? “Dumb” or simplified smart phones or e-ink devices? Modern iPod clones? The upcoming Slate car? A local LLM/voice assistant?

There are tons of neat alternatives to tech bros, the problem is attention. People just don’t know about them, so they don’t hit critical mass.

…I don’t have a good solution to this, but the attention economy is broke and following the herd is not working anymore. And there are solutions better than going backwards, but no mental energy to find them.

These technology phobes are the next generation who will be scammed out of their pension fund, inheritance or investments just like current boomers who refused to advance along with the world, and they deserve to be hacked, scammed, robbed because they refuse to keep learning.

Learn or get left behind.

Please use windows XP and connect it to the internet and see what happens LOL

I wouldn't consider OBD-II computerized.