3 ms·

In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety tha

In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety that new technologies do not further their interests, because every time a new one comes out it is used to depress wages or surveil people. They don't know enough about technology to formulate a sane objection, so they latch on to "5G is evil black magic." Remember, for a lot of people in the world most technologies are magic. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-...

acqq 6y ago
> there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G Not there. The claim is not supported by the article you cite. The article uses a lot of words about "security" but the truth is 5G has no worse security compared to 2G 3G etc. The claims about 5G in China "used for surveillance" from the article are also false, as China started installing 5G equipment just very recently, like a few months ago, and the number of 5G-capable phones in China is minimal. Whatever they needed for "surveillance" they could have used the older technologies just as well. Edit: To answer "Is your point..." question below: neither nor, to both of your constructs. The article simply doesn't support its major claim, because all the "problems" they cite (security, surveillance) are completely not specific to 5G, and their claims of existing relation to 5G technology are obviously false, just as I wrote.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Is your point that the New Yorker missed risks you do find meaningful, or that everything they pointed out is not meaningful to you and therefore 5G must be loved by all? Either way, it misses the point of my comment.
simonh 6y ago
I don’t think that stands up. If they are distrustful of technology in general, how come they are ok with quantum nano time dilation beneficial frequency mumbo jumbo? Some people have always been susceptible to quackery, there seems to be something seductive about the idea that you’ve found a wonderful solution the mainstream have rejected or don’t understand. I don’t think fringe claptrap is somewhere faulty logic leads them to, I think it’s the destination they are attracted to and the pretext they latch on to doesn’t matter that much.

acqq 6y ago

> there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G Not there. The claim is not supported by the article you cite. The article uses a lot of words about "security" but the truth is 5G has no worse security compared to 2G 3G etc. The claims about 5G in China "used for surveillance" from the article are also false, as China started installing 5G equipment just very recently, like a few months ago, and the number of 5G-capable phones in China is minimal. Whatever they needed for "surveillance" they could have used the older technologies just as well. Edit: To answer "Is your point..." question below: neither nor, to both of your constructs. The article simply doesn't support its major claim, because all the "problems" they cite (security, surveillance) are completely not specific to 5G, and their claims of existing relation to 5G technology are obviously false, just as I wrote.

rmrfstar 6y ago
Is your point that the New Yorker missed risks you do find meaningful, or that everything they pointed out is not meaningful to you and therefore 5G must be loved by all? Either way, it misses the point of my comment.

simonh 6y ago

I don’t think that stands up. If they are distrustful of technology in general, how come they are ok with quantum nano time dilation beneficial frequency mumbo jumbo? Some people have always been susceptible to quackery, there seems to be something seductive about the idea that you’ve found a wonderful solution the mainstream have rejected or don’t understand. I don’t think fringe claptrap is somewhere faulty logic leads them to, I think it’s the destination they are attracted to and the pretext they latch on to doesn’t matter that much.