3 ms·

Some things are objectively bad and should be regulated by society. Subverting the web for tracking and hoarding personal data are two big ones. Regulation me

Some things are objectively bad and should be regulated by society. Subverting the web for tracking and hoarding personal data are two big ones. Regulation means laws proposed by a government, and it also means either an impact on the profits of entrepreneurs (n. fr. middle man) or at least a lot of press from entrepreneurs about how this will stifle innovation and stop the next generation reaching the American Dream: you know what’s cool? A billion dollars It’s easy to hop skip and jump through all sorts of stages to end up at crazy conclusions, but I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to point to materialism, wealth inequality, and love of money as being serious corruptions. A little modesty and humility goes a long way. Maybe don’t [faux] celebrate the next massive tech exit as the top news item on HN?

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
This comment is right on the money. No pun intended. It was a serious mistake to dream that this sort of activity (surveillance and ad services) is the basis for the economy of the future. Time to wake up. My heart sinks everytime I see an office floor of long tables and computer monitors. This is not the future we want. Don't care how much some people are getting paid now, or how easy they think their "jobs" are, the salaries will inevitably drop and the "work" will become increasingly mind-numbing. The purpose of all this: To analyse people's behaviour and serve them advertising (or worse). To pretend that people do not need to possess good judgment anymore because computers can tell us what decisions to make. It is not an American Dream. It's a nightmare that is just beginning to take shape. Wake up.
unishark 6y ago
It seems like a tautology to say subverting is objectively bad. When does tracking become subverting though? Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  I don’t want to overcome wealth inequality so we can all own Porsche SUVs. I’m not interested in facilitating mass materialism. Materialism is the problem, and wealth inequality a symptom, in my experience.
  - unishark 6y ago
    > I don’t want to overcome wealth inequality so we can all own Porsche SUVs. Indeed quite the opposite. But if some do care to own them, that doesn't have to bother you.
- someguyorother 6y ago
  >Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something. You could probably do it along the lines of a Vimes' boots argument. "People who are poor can't afford essential services, medical support, etc., so their lives slowly degrade while they fill the void with empty consumerism. If there were equality, they would have been sufficiently well-off to directly deal with the problems of their lives." That argument opposes materialism because it argues that consumerist materialism obscures real problems, and it is also in favor of equality as something that would improve people's lives.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

This comment is right on the money. No pun intended. It was a serious mistake to dream that this sort of activity (surveillance and ad services) is the basis for the economy of the future. Time to wake up. My heart sinks everytime I see an office floor of long tables and computer monitors. This is not the future we want. Don't care how much some people are getting paid now, or how easy they think their "jobs" are, the salaries will inevitably drop and the "work" will become increasingly mind-numbing. The purpose of all this: To analyse people's behaviour and serve them advertising (or worse). To pretend that people do not need to possess good judgment anymore because computers can tell us what decisions to make. It is not an American Dream. It's a nightmare that is just beginning to take shape. Wake up.

unishark 6y ago

It seems like a tautology to say subverting is objectively bad. When does tracking become subverting though? Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something.

gorgoiler 6y ago
I don’t want to overcome wealth inequality so we can all own Porsche SUVs. I’m not interested in facilitating mass materialism. Materialism is the problem, and wealth inequality a symptom, in my experience.
- unishark 6y ago
  > I don’t want to overcome wealth inequality so we can all own Porsche SUVs. Indeed quite the opposite. But if some do care to own them, that doesn't have to bother you.
someguyorother 6y ago
>Also it's a bit ironic to decry both materialism and wealth inequality at the same time. I guess if you're concerned about the wealthy's souls or something. You could probably do it along the lines of a Vimes' boots argument. "People who are poor can't afford essential services, medical support, etc., so their lives slowly degrade while they fill the void with empty consumerism. If there were equality, they would have been sufficiently well-off to directly deal with the problems of their lives." That argument opposes materialism because it argues that consumerist materialism obscures real problems, and it is also in favor of equality as something that would improve people's lives.