essay
How software mediates thought and constrains free will
There is a fundamental difference between modes of composition: dictation, pen on paper, or keyboard. These differences noticeably influence the final output, although the effects remain unpredictable, emerging downstream from the complex system of communication.
Sometimes I'm overly aware of the chosen mode and find myself asking: what would the output—and thus the communicated message—have been if a different mode had been selected? What would Socrates' ideas have become without Plato’s writing? How would Kant’s thoughts differ had he used a keyboard? And what if Aaron Swartz had relied on pen and paper?
Even when expressing the exact same idea—if such a thing is possible—the resulting outputs might differ so profoundly that the behavioral outcomes become even more unpredictable. Different modes of composition inherently create different outcomes, influencing the subject’s possibility of self-determination in digital environments.
Digital composition is uniquely distinct because its interfaces are intentionally designed. They embed someone else's mental model of creativity and thus limit possibilities, exerting a constituting power of creating contingent “reality” and possibilities—or presenting composition merely as one option among many decided by the designer.
Physical tools (paintbrush, pen), by contrast, have constraints arising from material reality rather than another person's mental model, fostering a distinctly different relationship to free will.
Marxist inversion: software is marketed as “tools”—the greatest farce—yet they lack the essential nature of true tools, which inherently offer maximal free will within their physical constraints.
The homogenization of writing technology (keyboards, word processors) may consequently limit the emergence of novel philosophical ideas. Modern UIs function as non-neutral mediators of thought—an invisible architecture shaping our thinking beneath our conscious awareness.
Perhaps this is why we cannot yet adequately theorize social media. Understanding the influence of "tool software" on composition, communication, and free will is a prerequisite to unraveling deeper “social software” aspects: feedback loops between composition and response, algorithmic effects, and the creation of new social norms.