While this is a great and now obvious conclusion i always find two places where the conversation stalls. Based on the article’s direction: - 1) what does it

While this is a great and now obvious conclusion i always find two places where the conversation stalls. Based on the article’s direction: - 1) what does it mean to be “humane” tech ? As the author argues - You could add friction to the large tech firms, even make attention marketing unviable. Then use that to fund “humane” solutions (editors and journalists ? Would that be human or humane?) Does that solve the potential abuse of tech and human wet ware ? Or Are we supposed to eventually say “Dune got it right, we should only have mentats” Edit: no time for point two, distracted.