3 ms·

It still requires consent. If it's really that bad, one can unplug and the problem goes away. Given you're still here and commenting on HN posts, the whole "we'

by lstyls 9y ago

It still requires consent. If it's really that bad, one can unplug and the problem goes away. Given you're still here and commenting on HN posts, the whole "we're in a dystopia already" schtick comes off as self-indulgent.

tgragnato 9y ago
I'm sorry if it looks like a self-indulgence speech, it's not really my intention. A complete opt-out from ...all that... would probably require moving to one of the Svalbard islands or joining a couple of bedouins in the Sahara desert. One can sure avoid some of the most uncomfortable things in society, this may also give you the impression that "it still requires consent", an illusion of control. But I was born and raised in a world made up of people inevitably related to each other. Even if I have personally exercised the ability to choose in what to be involved with or not, I am aware I don't have any ultimate control over the whole complex around me. This doesn't mean I am fine with x,y,z. That's why the actual society is dystopian in the first place: because actually the best thing you can do is to speak out in order to raise awareness about the "we hoped for this, but ended up with that instead". Disillusionment may be a first step, indulgence not. A BCI technology developed in the pubblic interest will be a game changer, but I simply don't see that (any deduction excluded).
- lstyls 9y ago
  Well said. I actually agree with you, apart from the semantics of "dystopia". And you're totally right that we as members of society don't really have much choice but to either go all-in or off the grid. The all-or-nothing starkness is good for nobody but the monopolists. > A BCI technology developed in the pubblic interest will be a game changer, but I simply don't see that. This seems to be the faustian bargain of capitalism. We get technological progress at exponential rates, and then the first purpose ends up to be selling ads.

by lstyls 9y ago

tgragnato 9y ago

I'm sorry if it looks like a self-indulgence speech, it's not really my intention. A complete opt-out from ...all that... would probably require moving to one of the Svalbard islands or joining a couple of bedouins in the Sahara desert. One can sure avoid some of the most uncomfortable things in society, this may also give you the impression that "it still requires consent", an illusion of control. But I was born and raised in a world made up of people inevitably related to each other. Even if I have personally exercised the ability to choose in what to be involved with or not, I am aware I don't have any ultimate control over the whole complex around me. This doesn't mean I am fine with x,y,z. That's why the actual society is dystopian in the first place: because actually the best thing you can do is to speak out in order to raise awareness about the "we hoped for this, but ended up with that instead". Disillusionment may be a first step, indulgence not. A BCI technology developed in the pubblic interest will be a game changer, but I simply don't see that (any deduction excluded).

lstyls 9y ago
Well said. I actually agree with you, apart from the semantics of "dystopia". And you're totally right that we as members of society don't really have much choice but to either go all-in or off the grid. The all-or-nothing starkness is good for nobody but the monopolists. > A BCI technology developed in the pubblic interest will be a game changer, but I simply don't see that. This seems to be the faustian bargain of capitalism. We get technological progress at exponential rates, and then the first purpose ends up to be selling ads.