There’s an invitation at the end for outreach to researchers, it redirects to:
Read this a few days back. I took away a note to read up on hedonic pricing, but not much more.
Oh my, what a stinking mess this is. What we have is Microsoft staff being given a space on a Microsoft-owned platform to lead the conversation on sustainability on said platform.
Well, their 2021 ‘recap’ tells us all we need to know. The UN’s Social Sustainability Goals (SSG’s) are seventeen in total.
Microsoft spent about five or six months on ‘build[ing] resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation’ (READ: Large Silicon Valley Corporation penetrates African regions).
It also spent about two to three months ‘Strengthen[ing] the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development’, (READ: Large Silicon Valley Corporation interfering in global governance at the highest level).
In contrast here’s how the MS/GitHub’s ‘Tech for Social Good’ spent 2021 on other SDG’s:
About a fortnight on ‘Climate Action’ and on reducing inequality. About one week each on Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Gender Equality, Quality Education and Decent Work and Economic Growth.
They are delighted to tell us they did nothing about: Zero Poverty, Clean Water and Sanitation, Affordable and Clean Energy or Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions… which of course they are desperately trying to undermine with FUD like this.
They obviously know the value of all the people who use GitHub… the loyalty of fools comes at a knockdown price… just ask them their free opinion and call it ‘consultation with the community’.
@Tammy Seems to me you are also one the outcasted few who recognises (personal rant follows) that when corporations talk diversity all they mean is labor capital farming through socioeconomic colonisation, obfuscated through the pretty packaging of equivocations, of which the general public unfortunately buys hook line and sinker, believing the smoke and mirrors they witnessed were referring to sociocultural diversity, when actually the entire goal, design, and architecture of such initiatives is to vanquish and eradicate cultural diversity, to leave behind the implantation of a single monoculture of corporate unity (capitalism is one big superior community, and if you aren’t subservient to its monotheism, then you are against progress and against humanity and “are on the wrong side of history”). Never has a diversity council at a corporate event ever concerned itself with whether their evangelism is actually intended to colonise and eradicate the cultural diversity they proclaim it is about, replacing it with superficial and imitative mockeries, all they concern themselves with is the employment targets of assimilating as many identities into their monoculture as possible, gentrifying the prior communities and cultures out of existence, and in some cases ramping up anticompetitive colonisation practices to do it, such as usurping all the resources within a community to then “save them with jobs” or partnering with governments and the philanthropy industries to fund the “welfare” initiatives of transforming the raw materials of independence into productive materials of trained obedience and controlled consumerism, or with marketing initiatives intended to propagandise cultural irritation to increase cultural emigration and dispersion to stave the remaining communities of the personnel needed to sustain themselves. I just wish they were honest about it, but seems the survival of such antagonistic games is that the participants in such initiatives aren’t even aware of the role they are playing, they have both feet planted in the valley of their beneficiaries to see alternatives beyond the games they are familiar with and are at home with, and when presented with alternatives they compare it against their comforts of stability and security and rule that the alternatives are inferior without any further contemplation; which is the very xenophobia that their superficial and marketed identity conception does nothing to actually address.
I’m not sure if ‘outcasted’ fits my occupational narrative. I have been given numerous opportunities to make a very good living and have rejected each one on the basis that my preferred theory of human consciousness is more reliable than the neoliberal/pro-business model of self-actualization, scientific managerialism and methodological individualism.
As a white, privileged hetero male with a decent education living in England I would say that I have wilfully chosen on each occasion not to be a member of a club that wants to have me as a member (I think that’s paraphrasing Groucho Marx, not Karl Marx?)
The structure/agency debate in the social sciences is overblown. Dialectically there is no logical reason why an individual cannot meet their own needs while also meeting the demands of a collective unit. In fact, in many cases these two goals are not opposing goals but complimentary.
This is why my critique of tech usually involves some take on reducing the scale of non-civic institutions, and thus is (broadly speaking) ‘anti-capitalist’… not because the harms these corporations do offends any moral framework I may adopt, but because the justifications for the ‘triumph’ of bourgeois economics is based on an unreliable model of human consciousness, which (as you say) implicates human beings in misapprehending themselves, what
they we are, and what it means to be human.
I can take the cut in pay, the simpering apologists for the status quo and the justifications for war in the name of Western imperialism and so on because I feel I am applying a model conceptual framework for human understanding that gives amazing results time and time again.
Just knowing I am no longer inadvertently contributing to the piracy of the human heart and mind under neoliberalism or capitalist ideology is what gets me out of bed in the morning and also what helps me sleep better at night.