Computer Neutrality: A Critical Response Essays Example

Nolan (n. pag.) lays out her basic argument about computer non-neutrality based on a flawed assumption of guns making killing easier. Technologies, obviously, vary in impacts, ways of use as well as developments immensely. That guns are responsible for easier killing is at best a flawed argument. Technologies in all discussed contexts – media, military, economy and education – similarly show differential degrees of impact on broader community. To claim computers are non-neutral – non-differentially – is, hence, a self-undermining argument. This paper aims, hence, to argue against Nolan's computer non-neutrality.
Nolan's springboard argument of guns completely ignores human agency. By claiming guns make killing easier, humans are simply prone to kill by sheer availability of resources for killing. Undeniably, history is full of examples in which – given huge resources for killing – humans, including military leaders, have refrained from action even against virtual enemies.
A second basic flaw in Nolan's main argument is embracing a deterministic point of view as regards frequency and effects. Technologies, Nolan argues, if "associated with specific patterns and effects" are prone to be non-neural – whatever usage or identity of controller is. Again, application patterns and effects are not set at stone, particularly for computers. Given how dynamic applications and motivations for usage are, patterns and identity of controllers, if any, do matter. Consider for example computer development over years. True, military and academia have been first to develop computers for specific purposes. However, in retrospect, initial patterns of huge mainframe usage as well as military espionage and computer communication applications do not, in fact, dictate how computers were used at non-academic and non-military contexts or later when personal computers became a household property. Decidedly, military and academia do not dictate how computers are used by individual or corporate users.
Nolan's human non-agency is undermined in her own words: "There is nothing which compels a society to adopt a technology once it is developed."
Time perspective is, interestingly, contributes to undermine Nolan's argument. Given Nolan's year of writing (1999), computers – particularly personal computers – were still limited in processing power. This is not to mention internet connection speeds which make present speeds and connectivity miraculous. According to Nolan, computers are a manifestation of a Western perspective of rationality, consistency and repetition. By reiterating processes and applications, computers are too systematic to be innovation-generating. Now, given present computer capabilities and applications, computers are not only innovation-generating but also game changers. Nolan uses an effective imagery to support her argument when she discusses impact of computers on education: computers, according to Nolan, are simply machines which produce seventeen-year olds holding on to certificates. Now given current distant learning and MOOC potentials, computers can hardly be said to stifle innovation.
In military, computers do not, in fact, maintain status quo. If, according to Nolan, superpowers and big militaries manipulate automated, early warning systems in order to maintain control on a global scale, non-state actors and terrorist groups undermine Nolan's argument. After USSR's collapse, for example, non-state groups continue to pose serious challenges to global order and hence undermine basic assumptions about global security and status quo supposedly under big powers' control.
In economy, likewise, computerization has not led to monetary crises only. Although financial service automation has led to many serious challenges to global economic system – such as cross-border crime and money laundering practices – computerization has led to many advances as well. Indeed, one main advantage of globalization is how easy capital inflows and outflows cross borders, a process which could have never been realized with computers.
Overall, Nolan's argues for computer non-neutrality based on flawed human non-agency claims. Technologies, in a counterargument, such as computers are in fact very dynamic and continue to evolve. Thus, patterns and applications are hardly fixed or controlled by one single force. The focus by Nolan, as well, on downsides has led, erroneously to an understanding of computers as negative forces excluding all upsides, past, present or potential.

Works Cited

Nolan, Lora. "The Computer, like all Technology, is Neutral." Student Papers. School of Computer Science & Statistics, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.