Hello! I'm popey (but my mum calls me Alan), and I do DevRel at Anchore. We're the commercial sponsors of some well-maintained open source security tools, including Syft (an SBOM generator) and Grype (a vulnerability scanner). Ask me later if you want to know more. This is my first time at Monkigras, and my first talk for what seems like years. The slides and all my speaker notes are at: popey.com/monkigras2025 If you see images that look blurry, it's not your eyes or my laptop going wrong, it's intentional. I try to blur large blobs of text, so you don't try to read them, and get distracted :) Let's talk Luddites, and modern technical change. Specifically The Productive Power of Principled Resistance

Question 1: Hands up those of you who have heard someone use the term "Luddite" about another human or group? Question 2: Hands up whether that was a negative comment? .. and if it was positive? Image from: Photo by https://unsplash.com/@jaimelopes

Ok, let's clarify what the historical Luddite movement (1811-1816) was actually about, as this helps establish meaningful modern parallels. The Luddites were skilled craftspeople protesting the economic displacement caused by industrial machinery in early 19th-century England. * The Luddites weren't simply "anti-technology" - they were skilled craftspeople opposing specific technologies that threatened their livelihoods and community welfare * They objected to the economic and social reorganization that came with industrialization * They were concerned about the devaluation of skilled labor * They questioned who benefited from technological "progress" and at whose expense This may sound familiar. Especially recently with modern developments in AI, LLMs, Agents etc

Let's fast-forward to the modern age. Most people have valid concerns about technical change, at some point. Question: Have any of you ever had _any_ kind of **concern** or **resistance** to a technological change? Ok. I've tried to read all your minds, and catalog all those concerns. Later, I'm interested to know from you if I missed any concerns you may have, or that you may have heard, about technological change. Stand by! There's a lot of these! Image from: https://unsplash.com/@robertwalsh0

## Economic Concerns (Primary Luddite Motivation) Let's start with Economic concerns... - Opposition to AI and automation that threatens "knowledge work" jobs, similar to how mechanical looms threatened weavers - Resistance to systems that make specialized human knowledge less valuable (e.g., coding assistants that might diminish programmer expertise) - Concerns about technology centralizing wealth and power in fewer hands (the tech monopolies) - Price structures or requirements that exclude lower-income users Image from: https://unsplash.com/@ziko_l

## Autonomy and Control (Implicit in Luddite Resistance) - Opposition to technologies that collect excessive data or use it in ways users cannot control - Resistance to closed systems that prevent users from modifying or repairing their own devices - Concerns about dependence on foreign technologies, platforms, or infrastructure - Preference for open source/Free Software over proprietary systems that limit user freedom Image from: https://unsplash.com/@treb_vinas24

## Community and Social Fabric (Central Luddite Concern) - Opposition to technologies that replace in-person interaction with digital substitutes - Resistance to systems _designed_ to capture and monetize human attention - Concerns about how digital platforms undermine local businesses and communities - Resistance to technologies that spread uniform cultural patterns Image from: https://unsplash.com/@vmxhu

## Ethical and Existential Concerns (Modern Extension) Then there's the much publisised Ethical and Existential concerns... - Opposition to energy-intensive technologies with significant carbon footprints - Resistance to systems that embed and amplify existing societal biases - Concerns about business models built on monitoring human behavior - Opposition to technologies deemed too powerful to be safely deployed (certain AI systems) Image from: https://unsplash.com/@yzypop

## Implementation and Quality Concerns (Practical Considerations) Finally... - Resistance due to inadequate protection against threats - Opposition to poorly maintained or designed systems - Rejection based on difficult or frustrating user experiences - Concerns about technological siloing and lack of standards Image from: https://unsplash.com/@ninjason

So those are the concerns. Theere's a lot! Did I miss any? Let me know after.. Having problems with technological change is one part of the equation. How do we turn those concerns into actionable activities? Technological resistance can be highly productive when it shapes technology toward more humane and beneficial ends. Rather than viewing it as merely obstructionist, we can understand resistance as a necessary corrective force in technological development. Here are seven positive examples of how technological resistance contributes productively to technological progress: Image: https://unsplash.com/@shnipelson

Question: Anyone recognise this gentleman who became internet famous in 2009? Question: Know his name? - Desi Cryer Question: How about the title of his "viral" YouTube video? - "HP computers are racist" Technological resistance often serves as a form of quality assurance that commercial incentives might otherwise skip. When users & developers resist adopting poorly designed or insecure tools, they create market pressure for better alternatives. The resistance to early facial recognition systems highlighted their poor performance on darker skin tones, leading to improved systems that work more equitably for all users. Without this initial resistance, these flaws might have persisted much longer. Image from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM - Desi Cryer Citation: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34514093

Technology often develops faster than our ethical frameworks can adapt. Resistance provides the breathing room needed for ethical consideration. When AI researchers called for a pause on large-scale AI development in 2023, they weren't rejecting AI altogether but advocating for thoughtful alignment with human values. This form of resistance aims to ensure technology serves humanity rather than the opposite. Image from: https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

At its best, technological resistance represents a form of democratic participation in shaping our technological future. When ordinary users reject privacy-invasive features or demand control over their data, they assert their right to influence the tools that increasingly structure their lives. For example, the backlash against invasive DRM systems in music eventually led to DRM-free music becoming the industry standard. A better outcome for both consumers and content creators.

Counterintuitively, resistance often *spurs* innovation rather than stifling it. The resistance to centralized social media has driven the development of decentralized alternatives like the Fediverse. The Linux operating system emerged partly as resistance to proprietary software, yet has become the foundation of most modern computing infrastructure. Some of our most important technological innovations have emerged as alternatives to rejected dominant paradigms. Image from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_branches_1.2.png CC-By-SA 4.0

The preservation of skill and craft knowledge serves as insurance against technological monocultures and their vulnerabilities. Maintaining diversity in approaches to solving problems (both high and low-tech) builds societal resilience. For example, the resurgence of interest in analog photography alongside digital hasn't replaced digital but has preserved valuable knowledge and aesthetic approaches that continue to influence digital photography. Image from: https://unsplash.com/@franciscoegonzalez

When users resist certain technologies, they send powerful market signals about unmet needs or concerns. The resistance to always-online DRM in games led to some publishers abandoning these systems after recognizing the damage to consumer relationships. This resistance didn't reject gaming but improved the industry's approach to legitimate concerns about ownership and access. A notable examples of this was the backlash against Microsoft's initially announced DRM policies for the Xbox One in 2013. Microsoft had planned to require regular online check-ins (every 24 hours) and impose restrictions on used game sales. After significant consumer pushback, Microsoft reversed these policies before the console's launch. (skip) Another significant example was the backlash against Electronic Arts' SimCity (2013), which required a constant internet connection even for single-player gameplay. Server issues at launch prevented many players from accessing the game they had purchased.

(note the braile on the button) Technological resistance often gives voice to those who might be harmed by new systems before their problems become widely recognized. During COVID, one research study documented how disability activists used social media to highlight inaccessible features in rapidly deployed technologies during the pandemic, leading to accessibility improvements. (skip) Disability advocates' resistance to certain AI interfaces has led to more accessible designs that benefit all users. This protective function of resistance prevents technology from inadvertently harming marginalized communities. Citation: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3373625.3417023 Image: https://unsplash.com/@mrp_oliveira

So that's seven examples of how resistance _can_ be a force for good. But resistance can be counter-productive when it exhibits certain characteristics. Here are four negative examples, but to "keep it light", I've used pictures of some of my favourite British TV comedy characters. Image: https://unsplash.com/@eiskonen

When resistance primarily defends existing power structures rather than legitimate values, it tends to be regressive. e.g. Resistance to technologies that democratize access to knowledge or creative tools will often fall into this category. This is Ian Fletcher, the (fictional) Head of Values at the BBC in the TV show "W1A", excellently played by Hugh Bonneville. There are plenty of examples in this show of the characters resisting change within the BBC, to protect their personal status quo.

When technological resistance stems from fundamental misunderstandings rather than legitimate concerns, it can impede beneficial progress. e.g. Resistance to electricity smart meters based on unfounded health concerns differs qualitatively from resistance based on valid privacy considerations. This is Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan, a (fictional) reporter for "On The Hour" and "The Day Today", played by Patrick Marber. His character somewhat misinformed the viewers.

Productive resistance typically distinguishes between a technology itself and problematic implementations of it. e.g. Rejecting all machine learning differs from rejecting specific applications of machine learning that lack transparency or accountability. This is "Medibot" from Look Around You. It directly satirizes the gap between the idea of futuristic technology and a clunky, nonsensical implementation.

Resistance that offers no constructive alternative path tends to be less productive than resistance that envisions better possibilities. e.g. Rejecting all forms of digital education differs from advocating for specific improvements to educational technology. This is Malcom Tucker, (fictional) parliamentary advisor from "The Thick Of It", played by Peter Capaldi. He's not a nuance kind of guy.

The most productive technological resistance often follows a middle path characterized by: - Thoughtfully choosing which technologies to use based on how they align with core values - Reshaping technologies to better serve human needs rather than simply accepting or rejecting them as given - Pushing for improvements rather than abandonment - Creating competing visions of how technology might otherwise function This approach recognizes that resistance isn't about halting progress but steering it toward more humane and beneficial ends. e.g. The Free Software Movement didn't reject software but reimagined how it could be developed and shared. e.g. Privacy advocates don't reject social connection but envision platforms that connect without exploiting. Productive technological resistance asks not whether we should have technology, but what values our technology should embody, who should benefit from it, and who should control it. These are legitimate questions that the original Luddites were asking, about the industrial technologies of their time. These remain important questions for ensuring technology serves human flourishing rather than undermining it.

So, technological resistance often emerges from legitimate concerns that, when properly addressed, can lead to better outcomes for everyone. Let's look at this from the other side, those on the recieving end of the resistance. Here's some simple but effective strategies for transforming resistance into productive change within software communities: Image from: https://unsplash.com/@iamfelicia

## Creating Structured Feedback Channels Effective resistance requires effective communication channels. Communities that provide clear, accessible ways for users and contributors to express concerns tend to evolve more successfully. The key is making these channels genuinely influential, rather than "performative". e.g. When Node.js faced community concerns about governance, they responded by creating an open governance model with multiple technical committees rather than a single decision-maker. This transformation of resistance into participation helped heal community rifts and improved the project overall. Image: https://unsplash.com/@jarritos

## Independent Mediation Services Mediation can be invaluable when communities reach an impasse. The newly established NixOS mediation service represents an innovative approach to resolving conflicts without resorting to permanent community fractures. Such services work best when they're independent, respected by all parties, and empowered to facilitate rather than impose solutions. This approach recognizes that technological disagreements often have interpersonal dimensions that require different resolution approaches than purely technical disputes.

## Ethical Frameworks and Boundary-Setting Communities benefit from establishing clear ethical frameworks before conflicts emerge. e.g. Mozilla's Manifesto has helped the organization navigate difficult decisions by providing a north star for what the community stands for. When concerns arise, they can be evaluated against these shared principles rather than being dismissed outright or accepted uncritically.

## Embracing Forking Thoughtfully (Dawn talked about this in her talk) Forking can be a productive response when communication breaks down or visions diverge irreconcilably. e.g. The LibreOffice fork from OpenOffice showed how a community-led alternative could revitalize development when the original project faced governance issues. However, successful forks typically require more than technical disagreement, they need a critical mass of developers, users, and resources to sustain independent development. They work best when they represent a genuine alternative vision rather than a protest. Image: https://fontawesome.com/icons/code-fork?s=solid

## Building Bridges Between Resistors and Developers Projects that actively engage critics often emerge stronger. e.g. When the Electronic Frontier Foundation raised concerns about the W3C's Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) standard, some browser developers engaged directly with the EFF to understand their concerns. While they didn't resolve all disagreements, this engagement led to better security researcher protections in the final standard. This bridge-building approach works by recognizing that most resistance comes from people who care deeply about the technology and want to see it succeed, just with different priorities or values. Treating resistors as potential allies rather than opponents transforms the dynamic, from confrontational to collaborative. Image: https://fontawesome.com/icons/code-branch

## Phased Implementation and Experimentation When concerns arise about new features or directions, phased implementation with opt-in periods helps build trust. Opt-in pre-release software channels are useful to get feedback from early adopters and enthusiasts. e.g. Firefox's gradual rollout of new features often includes experimental flags, allowing concerned users to provide feedback before changes become permanent. This approach acknowledges that resistance sometimes stems from the _pace_ of change rather than the changes themselves. This approach transforms resistance from a binary yes/no into a more nuanced conversation about implementation details.

## Transparency in Decision-Making Resistance often intensifies when decisions seem arbitrary or motivated by hidden agendas.Projects that document their decision-making processes, including rejected alternatives and trade-offs, tend to face less destructive resistance. e.g. The Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) process offers an excellent case study in transparent decision-making that has significantly shaped Python's evolution. This process documents not just technical specifications but the complete reasoning behind language changes: Unlike more corporate-driven languages, Python's community-based governance requires this level of transparency to maintain legitimacy and trust. The PEP process demonstrates how detailed documentation of decision rationales can facilitate community buy-in even for controversial changes.

## A Synthesis Approach: Resistance as Co-Creation The most successful projects view resistance not as opposition to overcome but as participation to channel. e.g. When Slack introduced threaded conversations in 2017, many teams and power users pushed back strongly against the feature. Critics argued it fragmented conversations, created information silos, and disrupted the fluid nature of team communication that made Slack successful in the first place. Rather than removing threads entirely or ignoring user concerns, Slack treated this resistance as valuable feedback. They maintained the threading functionality but made significant modifications based on user criticism. By engaging with the resistance rather than dismissing it, Slack transformed user frustration into a co-creation process. The result was a more refined implementation that preserved the benefits of threaded conversations while addressing legitimate workflow concerns raised by their community.

## What Not To Do: Learning from Canonical's Mistakes Finally, an example of what NOT to do when confronted by resistance: In mid-2012, website "fixubuntu dot com" was setup to educate users about privacy concerns with the latest Ubuntu release. They provided a well-documented shell-script to easily disable the features. In November 2013, Canonical sent legal notices to website for trademark violations. With that action they transformed legitimate privacy concerns into a broader conflict about corporate overreach and censorship. This response damaged trust and demonstrated how attempting to silence critics often amplifies their message. The so-called Streisand effect in action.

Bridging Past and Present The Luddite movement, often mischaracterized as simple anti-technology sentiment, offers valuable insights for our current technological challenges. By understanding the original Luddites' concerns about economic displacement, community disruption, and power imbalances, we can recognize similar patterns in today's technological landscape. Modern resistance to certain technologies isn't necessarily a rejection of progress but perhaps a call for more thoughtful, human-centered development. Images: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side

## The Productive Power of Principled Resistance Technological resistance serves as a vital counterbalance to market-driven development. When channeled constructively, this resistance functions as we have outlined. The distinction between productive and destructive resistance lies not in whether it slows adoption, but in whether it improves outcomes. Resistance based on misinformation, blanket rejection, or pure status quo preservation rarely leads to better technology. However, resistance that distinguishes between technologies and their implementations, offers alternatives, and engages meaningfully with developers often produces superior results.

## From Resistance to Co-Creation The most effective communities have developed strategies and mechanisms for transforming resistance into improvement. Conversely, attempts to silence or marginalize resistance, as in Canonical's legal threats to fixubuntu typically backfire by amplifying concerns and damaging trust. The most successful projects understand that resistance contains valuable information about unaddressed needs or overlooked problems.

## The Way Forward As we navigate an era of accelerating technological change, particularly with AI and automation creating disruptions reminiscent of the Industrial Revolution... we need to recognize technological resistance as neither inherently regressive nor blindly progressive. Resistance represents a essential dialogue about how technology should evolve to serve human flourishing. The spirit of Luddism worth preserving isn't opposition to technology itself, but insistence that technology should serve the many rather than the few, respect human dignity rather than undermine it, and strengthen communities rather than fracture them. The question isn't whether to embrace or reject technology, but how to shape it wisely through a process that includes both innovation _and_ principled resistance. Image by: https://unsplash.com/@kevingutowski

Image: https://unsplash.com/fr/@tadekl

_footer: [📷](https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side)