I’m 100% for eliminating language that is unduly offensive, exclusionary, or racist from socio-technical platforms....that said, aren’t we eliminating the conce

I’m 100% for eliminating language that is unduly offensive, exclusionary, or racist from socio-technical platforms....that said, aren’t we eliminating the concept of desire itself once we make “unrestrictedness” part of it? The whole notion of desire is a directed wanting—that is to say, I want this, not that. Whether this wanting is shallow or not, I think, isn’t really up for us to decide. This is a technological manipulation of wants and needs (something we’ve been subject to since the 20th cen. Though usually those orchestrating it aren’t upfront about it). I think urging people to step outside their comfort zones and expand their horizons is a great thing, but I think this is throwing a technological restriction/solution at a non technical social problem—you really want people to broaden their notions of whom they might be intimate with, start by putting funding into community activities and inclusive communal structures and go from there—I think that’s a much better way to get people talking than to lump some restraints onto what are already arguably dehumanizing, distancing technical outlets. I know I’m talking past the authors of this paper somewhat (since this isn’t their point) but sometimes limiting, reducing, or restricting the application of technical solutions to certain domains is a better solution than commiting all this effort to properly technicise elements of human life that shouldn’t have been so heavily technicised in te first place.