3 ms·
The problem is that people want cages. They want cages, especially, for their foes (real or perceived): every time you hear someone say, 'there ought to be a l
by zeveb 6y ago
The problem is that people want cages. They want cages, especially, for their foes (real or perceived): every time you hear someone say, 'there ought to be a law' what he is really saying is, 'I want armed men to use the threat of deadly violence to herd people who do what I don't like or don't do what I like into cages.'
Less obviously, many (perhaps most) people want cages for themselves. They don't trust themselves to make adult decisions, or simply don't want to be responsible for their choices. There is security to three hots & a cot, just as there is security to the iOS App Store. What's missing is not security but liberty.
And folks don't just want cages for their foes and themselves; they want not to be confronted with it. Just note the downvotes any post about the lack of freedom on iOS will get.
- Dirlewanger 6y agoYou're getting downvoted, but you're correct. While I think it's partly a failure in properly communicating all of the dangers with big tech to the public, I think the bigger reason is that people just don't give a shit. When trying to talk to non-techie co-workers/friends at happy hours, I've mostly gotten either blank stares or nervous laughter as they go back to staring at their iPhones (hell, I get those responses from other developers who should know better as well). As long as people have their Instagram feed, they're kept satisfactorily sedated.
- ike77 6y agoYour second paragraph is really insightful. It's very simple, perfectly describe the behavior of countless people in various situations, and is not a mere criticism of people in general as this kind of behavior is perfectly rational from an incentive perspective. I would like to read more about that.
- eternalban 6y agoYou are articulating the insight that has been intuitively grasped by leaders, revolutionaries, and despots alike, throughout history. If you look at it from a systems point of view, the mass of humanity provides the 'inert balast' that allows for continuity and long-term activities. The system design bug here is that, the acquiescence of the masses is obtained via pschological phenomena common to the human being. The implication of that is that there is a system level disconect between "how am I actually doing" vs "how do I think I am doing". The system of collective human management operates at the partially fictional level of "perception" vs factual "reality". It is this psychological content, formed via psychological manipulations (such as religion, ideology, propaganda), that informs the 'views' and 'decisions' of the masses. We don't have a systemic approach to providing decentralized "information as utility" services for our societies. There are no technical issues. ("Business model" is not a technical problem.) A centralized approach allows for maintenance of power for existing entities (individuals, families, organizations, corporations). The forces behind centralization are powerful and entrenched, and the opposing vision is held by relatively marginal entities. Obviously entrenched power will fight tooth and nail to maintain power. What "people want" is neither here nor there; they'll use whatever toy they are given, because that is what "people" have been doing since day 1.