Winner advocated for the politics of technology to be debated before they were implemented. His warning was that most technology that looked safe from the general outlook was outdated and in this case to the children. He outlined three maxims. The first maxim was no innovation without representation. This affects children since they have to be represented well in the debating floors. The second issue is that of revealing the political deliberations of the technology in order to uncover any hidden policies. Some policies are there to serve personal interests. In this case of banning the sale of video games to minors may be having a hidden agenda in the business arena. Competition is stiff than never (Winner, 2003)The last maxim is that of no means without ends. A technology should not create a need, it should rather fulfill one. Implementing technology in children should not create a need that will have the negatives outweighing the positives by creating a need that proves more dangerous to them. Who should really take the responsibility of determining the appropriateness of a particular technology to children? And to what extent?
References
Winner, L. (2003). Do artifacts have politics? Technology and the Future , 109 (1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
