I remember that topic @patm. I do not know if I was the one who advised to drop the subject. Could well be. But if I was, that wasn’t because it was inappropriate, but rather it was too wide in scope.
We’ve had numerous discussions over time on what Humane Technology exactly entails, what was relevant to our community, and what not.
Both Humane Technology and “Aligning technology to humanity’s best interests” don’t say anything about the scope in which we are operating, and that could be somewhat of a problem, were it not that we implicitly restrict ourselves to the digital realm, i.e. internet-related technology and tech harms.
If we would include e.g. animal welfare and took the broadest implied scope, then we could discuss inbreeding of dogs, maximizing milk production, or even the ethics of drinking milk. Put nature in the mix and we can discuss crop yields, monocultures, pesticides and insect armageddon. Also - closer to our subject matter - we could discuss new military weapon systems, missiles and tanks.
We are not all of that. We are focused on internet technologies: The online world as it applies to users and affects human beings, society in a broader sense, hence ‘humanity’, and tech that takes human values and human wellbeing into account, and does not destroy us and the planet, hence ‘humane technology’.
That is already immensely broad. Even (while follower count is still very low, or because of it) on Twitter I notice that when I tweet a couple of times about Privacy, some new followers will join. If I then follow up with some tweets about Cyberbullying, some people unfollow again, and some others subscribe.
In May this year, when I wasn’t forum admn yet, I wrote a paper about scope strategy, mission and vision to the CHT core team, and I think now is a good time to post it here:
BTW I see this thread as an interesting philosophical discussion, but not necessarily as a project to change our mission statement. Right now the need does not exist. The current terminology and slogan in its context make it clear enough what we are about.
If we ever go about a throroughly well defined mission, vision and slogan, then they should also accurately convey the scope in which we do operate. The current unclarity in these serves as an advantage, I think, as it gives us some freedom of movement to determine (organically) where our community interests lie. Looking back on our prior works and experiences we can then find statements that properly encompass who we are and what we do. Right now IMHO we are in a too immature state to determine that yet.