be diligent
For individuals
It's challenging to work a process when it moves slower than feels appropriate. In the context of computer conversations, the tactic of speed is constant, and the sense of having permission to go slowly is one that has to be built up through experience.
One of the specific tactics of speed that comes into play with computer conversations is the emotional appeal. What the use of this tactic does is make it feel even harder to raise concerns or ask questions. Some popular ones in the context of computer-use relate to clean-tech and greenwashing (you aren't against a healthy environment are you?!), health (how dare you challenge the idea of something that we say is about saving lives/curing disease), kids (think of the children, save the children), and nationalism/sovereignty (us good, them bad, think of the enemy).
It takes diligence to hear these types of rationales for computer use and back away enough to consider their validity. Often times, the problem in question is very real, but the idea that computers are the answer is not. This is confusing.
In the case of healthcare, for example, we are well down an intensely narrow path of diagnostic-minded approaches rather than preventative measures. This concept of more holistic thinking about health is currently getting intermingled with dangerous thinking about wellness and eugenics. Preventative measures have to do with investing in people's general well-being rather than being focused on narrow treatments. Of course the equation here should be both things - this point is about them being out of balance, not that one is right or wrong. Further, when people talk about computers and solving disease, they generally fail to shed light on the full process from start to finish which is a much more complex undertaking than pattern-matching. What happens in care settings when a large number of small decisions get moved into software because of touted benefits of improved monitoring of someone's health? What does that do to the shape of care work, what does that do to how we learn, and what does that do to our ability to provide care to each other?
In the case of climate collapse, the things we need to stop doing are clear and well-known. The difficult part is the change to behaviour and incentives. While there are always going to be beneficial uses of data and computers in the context of any information-based set of strategies and tasks, losing sight of the real causes of the problems allows for quick switching of symptom management with addressing underlying cause. If a new technology is touted as being good for the environment, it may overshadow the shift in power between the product company and the public sector - moving more authority for climate response into private hands. Not good.
None of the deep old problems we are contending with have computer-shaped solutions. It would be lovely if they did. It's important to learn to be on guard for emotional appeals that push you into a space where it feels harder to ask questions. By being diligent in process and conversation, you can engage more carefully with the fundamentals of a conversation that may be using emotional tactics to build support for an approach that needs more rigorous questioning and discussion.
Finally, being diligent is also tied to being a good source of information. Repeating slogans or takes is easy, but if you don't have a grounded sense of how to defend your beliefs or positions, you'll be easily knocked by counter-arguments, especially when they are laced with emotional appeal. Developing that grounded sense happens through having interest, curiosity, and willingness to engage with uncomfortable discussions about trade-offs. Being diligent in how you learn and think helps you feel confident in holding your ground when challenged, and equally as confident about changing your mind if you should.