human data isn't just about data

it's about humans. we're living in a time where anyone can make their voice heard about anything. i can sit in my room, type out my thoughts, and no longer are my thoughts confined to my immediate social circle, or the speed at which cows are killed and reeds are smashed¹. that's a power unknown to any of our forebearers, and truthfully, it's one of the most beautiful results of all of the development of computing (barring the unfortunate prevalence of vacuousness and oppression) because it should give room for even the most traditionally marginalised of voices. because of this, it is important to recognize the dual importance of not only the content being output, but the human behind the keyboard, presumably writing with the intention of it being read by other humans.

the dehumanization of tools

ivan illich, especially in tools for conviviality and deschooling society, argues that tools (including language systems and educational structures) should enhance human autonomy and creativity, not dominate or standardize or replace it. writing for humans affirms this; it is a tool of conviviality², an act of fostering mutualism, broadening dialogue, and creating shared meaning. when writing is directed toward algorithmic systems of ingestion (ai crawlers, seo), it loses this characteristic. language loses its beauty as the strand of connection between otherwise separated groups of humans.

to write with humans in mind is to sacrificially and selflessly give one's brain over to others to ingest. to write with computers in mind is to sell, to ignore the realness of a human audience in favour of cold nlp systems. and don't try to argue that llm interfaces are different since the end result is still human. a: we do not know that that will always be the case (it isn't now) and b: as long as optimizing for crawlers brings more traffic, writing will still be made subservient to those crawlers.

communicative freedom

murray bookchin's political philosophy emphasises communicative freedom as fundamental to societal liberation. language is not just expression but also an act of mutual recognition. a mouth, unmatched by an ear, has no reason to move.

writing for other humans keeps up reciprocal relationships which are the basis of true democracy. if, in writing, we cater primarily to dehumanized listeners, we splinter and alienate humans who might otherwise find a piece as a rallying point or something engaging or informative. writing for humans is therefore not just an aesthetic ideal or "ethical;" it is a political act which maintains the conditions necessary for civic participation.³

balzac: fragility and richness in human recognition

in cousin pons⁴, balzac's vision of society is that of one in decay, where sentimental value, human connection, and the important of relationships have been eclipsed by greed, social status elevation, and commodification. pons is ultimately destroyed so that maximum value can be extracted from his lifelong pursuit of that which he deems beautiful: human creation. an artist, he's juxtaposed in a world which rejects art for instrumental value. he is "read," almost too literally, by a society that no longer knows how to read people.

the tragedy of cousin pons points to the need for writing that rejects the purely transactional. human-directed writing preserves nuance, irony, wit, longing, anger, joy, those layers of expression that can't be replicated by data modelling and economic rationale. balzac's world becomes dystopian exactly when human communication ceases to matter, because language no longer connects people.

in conclusion

to write for humans is:

• to affirm language as a relational tool
• to sustain political and ecological freedom through mutualism
• to preserve the emotional, ethical, and aesthetic depth of humanity

in a world commonly reshaped to accomidate technology and the market, writing with a human reader in mind is a form of both cultural and preservational resistance. it maintains space for humans to remain, well, human. we are not data, not prompts, not users. it is not just about who reads our words or ideas, but how they read them, and why we write them in the first place.