5 ms·

That's literally the point of the quote and their statement, I think. Any specific thing can be convincingly shot down in a forum of relative experts like this

That's literally the point of the quote and their statement, I think. Any specific thing can be convincingly shot down in a forum of relative experts like this one. We don't know where it's going or how it'll play out. But we can feel that it is already bad and is going to get worse. Some day people will try to say "we didn't know" but that will be a lie. Some of us did and tried to convince y'all. But because we aren't able to convincingly predict the future in minute detail we've been ignored.

ls65536 5y ago
The worst part is whenever bringing up such points others are often quick to dismiss them as wacky "conspiracy theories" or even just unfounded pessimism about the state of things as they are today. Merely bringing up comparisons of certain observations about society today to those of Nazi Germany (or other reprehensible regimes throughout history) risks getting oneself cancelled or targeted in other ways. "How dare you compare the horrors of World War II with the relative ease of things today! It's nowhere near as bad today as it was back then!", cry the detractors. And they may be right about that in some sense, but those who don't learn from history and apply its lessons to the present are doomed to repeat certain mistakes, or at least to make history rhyme, as the saying goes. The chilling effect caused by the stifling of open discussion about how things are today and where they could risk going wrong in the future is how we all end up sleepwalking into the well-known horrors of the past that we'd otherwise all wish to avoid.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  We can thank Snowden for giving us a pretty good example of what has gone wrong and how conspiracy theories cannot all be dismissed - all the more effective, probably, because of the discontinuity it represented in this slow "boiling the frog" business.
hervature 5y ago
History is full of groups opposed to technological progress. Perhaps the most famous being the Luddites who are now the namesake of a word that signifies someone who is opposed to technological advancement. How do you differentiate your senses now compared to what they sensed back then? As it turns out, they were incredibly wrong and the amount of suffering has reduced as a direct consequence of technology. Technology has also made us more aware of human suffering but we should be careful to adjust for information available. The truth is that, since WWII, the quality of life has increased tremendously due to technology.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  You should look into what the luddites were actually doing and why. There's definitely a lesson there but not the one you think. Anyway yes, as I said. Dismiss excuse invalidate. I will truly be happy if I turn out to be wrong about this. Where will you be if you are wrong?
  - hervature 5y ago
    They were angry because factories could produce their crafts more cheaply and then they could not find a job (in their choice of craft) because the factories had reduced the demand for those jobs. So they burned down factories in order to protect their jobs. The same sentiment has been rediscovered every technological shift. Refrigeration, computation, internet, etc. Last time I checked, no one feels bad for all those iceberg harvesters that used to bring ice cubes to millionaires in the Southern US who no longer work. We are too busy enjoying our iced teas I suppose. > Where will you be if you are wrong? You do not know my stance on the matter. You presume, because I responded inquiring into how your senses were different, that I was not on your side. But I would most likely be in a little cabin in the mountains. I have quit Meta for the past 6 years, have de-Googled myself (in so much that you cannot really what others do), and generally agree that many technologies are more harmful to society than help. Particularly, what people call surveillance capitalism. That being said, I recognize that it is not the underlying technology that is problematic but the institutions and decision makers. If you read the article, they are recreating the exact widening of the gap between themselves and the people under the guise that they know better (since the have the data, they made it, only they understand the tech, etc.) I would never advocate for the destruction of the internet to prevent these institutions but rather educate and elucidate my peers to narrow this gap. I asked you to help close this gap by telling me what you see and your response was "you're the problem for even asking".
    - hef19898 5y ago
      They were angry because said factories took away their livlihoods, and that of their children as well. And because there was no social net in place to soften the decline in demand for their trades.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
We can at least sense that the potential is there for technology to become something horrible and oppressive - either on its own, or underlying some kind of oppressive government. We don't have to know the exact form it will take. We should oppose all the forms that tech can become oppressive.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Well, the 20th century gave us a lot of examples already... But are you seriously rejecting the post-WW2 paradigm where tech was made sacred and engineers and scientists were turned into its high priests ? I know some people like that, but I wouldn't have expected to see them on hacker news !

ls65536 5y ago

The worst part is whenever bringing up such points others are often quick to dismiss them as wacky "conspiracy theories" or even just unfounded pessimism about the state of things as they are today. Merely bringing up comparisons of certain observations about society today to those of Nazi Germany (or other reprehensible regimes throughout history) risks getting oneself cancelled or targeted in other ways. "How dare you compare the horrors of World War II with the relative ease of things today! It's nowhere near as bad today as it was back then!", cry the detractors. And they may be right about that in some sense, but those who don't learn from history and apply its lessons to the present are doomed to repeat certain mistakes, or at least to make history rhyme, as the saying goes. The chilling effect caused by the stifling of open discussion about how things are today and where they could risk going wrong in the future is how we all end up sleepwalking into the well-known horrors of the past that we'd otherwise all wish to avoid.

BlueTemplar 5y ago
We can thank Snowden for giving us a pretty good example of what has gone wrong and how conspiracy theories cannot all be dismissed - all the more effective, probably, because of the discontinuity it represented in this slow "boiling the frog" business.

hervature 5y ago

History is full of groups opposed to technological progress. Perhaps the most famous being the Luddites who are now the namesake of a word that signifies someone who is opposed to technological advancement. How do you differentiate your senses now compared to what they sensed back then? As it turns out, they were incredibly wrong and the amount of suffering has reduced as a direct consequence of technology. Technology has also made us more aware of human suffering but we should be careful to adjust for information available. The truth is that, since WWII, the quality of life has increased tremendously due to technology.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
You should look into what the luddites were actually doing and why. There's definitely a lesson there but not the one you think. Anyway yes, as I said. Dismiss excuse invalidate. I will truly be happy if I turn out to be wrong about this. Where will you be if you are wrong?
- hervature 5y ago
  They were angry because factories could produce their crafts more cheaply and then they could not find a job (in their choice of craft) because the factories had reduced the demand for those jobs. So they burned down factories in order to protect their jobs. The same sentiment has been rediscovered every technological shift. Refrigeration, computation, internet, etc. Last time I checked, no one feels bad for all those iceberg harvesters that used to bring ice cubes to millionaires in the Southern US who no longer work. We are too busy enjoying our iced teas I suppose. > Where will you be if you are wrong? You do not know my stance on the matter. You presume, because I responded inquiring into how your senses were different, that I was not on your side. But I would most likely be in a little cabin in the mountains. I have quit Meta for the past 6 years, have de-Googled myself (in so much that you cannot really what others do), and generally agree that many technologies are more harmful to society than help. Particularly, what people call surveillance capitalism. That being said, I recognize that it is not the underlying technology that is problematic but the institutions and decision makers. If you read the article, they are recreating the exact widening of the gap between themselves and the people under the guise that they know better (since the have the data, they made it, only they understand the tech, etc.) I would never advocate for the destruction of the internet to prevent these institutions but rather educate and elucidate my peers to narrow this gap. I asked you to help close this gap by telling me what you see and your response was "you're the problem for even asking".
  - hef19898 5y ago
    They were angry because said factories took away their livlihoods, and that of their children as well. And because there was no social net in place to soften the decline in demand for their trades.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

We can at least sense that the potential is there for technology to become something horrible and oppressive - either on its own, or underlying some kind of oppressive government. We don't have to know the exact form it will take. We should oppose all the forms that tech can become oppressive.

BlueTemplar 5y ago
Well, the 20th century gave us a lot of examples already... But are you seriously rejecting the post-WW2 paradigm where tech was made sacred and engineers and scientists were turned into its high priests ? I know some people like that, but I wouldn't have expected to see them on hacker news !