> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours Partly, but this example was also used as well: > Thoug

> The article's point is about other people's computers being used to serve their interests over yours Partly, but this example was also used as well: > Though perhaps unlikely, my hyper-awareness of the sinister ruthlessness of machines in the ordinary things around us led me immediately to note the pathological outcome: Someone stuck on a desert island (or equivalent) who starves to death, because the only food they have is expired Juicero juice bags and a machine which refuses to serve them. While in Juicero's case this might seem like a comical example, I fully believe it's only a matter of time until something like this happens. The deliberate utilisation of machine-assisted ruthlessness to malevolent ends becomes more and more common with every passing day, as companies realise they can escape from accountability by hiding behind the facelessness of the machine, which disempowers the individual to fight or object to it. The now memetic expression, “computer says no”, pithily expresses this phenomenon. …which is precisely the usual free software issue. The Juicero is a computer you own, but that does not serve your interests.