2 ms·
On the contrary, it is a blind assertion that those who do not act only do so specifically out of a lack of knowledge. If people cared about a problem, they cou
by jjk166 5y ago
On the contrary, it is a blind assertion that those who do not act only do so specifically out of a lack of knowledge. If people cared about a problem, they could look up solutions, or look up people who could solve it for them, or people who could solve it for them would come knocking on their door, offering to solve their problem for them with the expectation they'll say yes.
Talk to 1000 random people, take all the time you want, bring any supporting material you want, how much of their hard earned money could you convince them, on average, to pay you to solve this problem for them? What is the value of having this issue magically disappear? For the vast majority of people, I doubt they'ed be willing to pay much if anything, which is equivalent to apathy.
- mindslight 5y agoAs I said, in the median person's model of the world GPS satellites are tracking everyone's location. You're essentially assuming that when talking to someone, they will automatically trust me when I describe the details of the problem they have and trust me when I tell them how they can (partially) solve it. In reality, even people that acknowledge there is a problem still will not trust a solution from a random person - rather they will become defensive and engage the cognitive dissonance. People generally become convinced of problems and solutions either of their own volition or by social proof. Articles condemning big tech are popular for a reason. Apple's anti-surveillance developments are popular for a reason. Movies about surveillance dystopias are popular for a reason. People like their autonomy while having a hard time imagining all the ways surveillance data can be abused. This narrative that surveillance subjects are fully informed willfully consenting participants is surveillance industry propaganda, and its ridiculousness becomes more apparent by the year.
- sixothree 5y agoNo offense, but your argument is so off topic, conflates the presented argument, and is wildly speculative of what an end user might do that it seems as if your intention is to distract from the argument at hand.