3 ms·
> to change the "meta". to make tracking more expensive and meaningless at scale, etc. The point is that the cost of tracking stays unchanged no matter what th
by autoexec 4y ago
> to change the "meta". to make tracking more expensive and meaningless at scale, etc.
The point is that the cost of tracking stays unchanged no matter what the data you feed it says. It's also just as meaningful in that it will still be collected, sold, used against you and will still have very real impacts on your life. The contents of your data will not and does not impact the machine or its functioning at all. All that matters is that there is data to collect and to leverage against you.
You're right we can't trust companies to save us here. The only solution to this is strong regulation with oversight and teeth. Until we get that, we can only do what little we can to limit the amount of data we give up and increase awareness of what's happening and how it harms us all.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoit's a good option, there are more radical options and it seems a bit capitalist realist to promote regulation as the only option available
- autoexec 4y agoI'm open to alternatives, even radical ones, but I'm not sure how many of those would be practical. Storming the offices of facebook and burning data centers to the ground seem pretty radical, but are unlikely to be effective. Throwing CEOs in prison seems radical, and I'm all for it, but only after they violate laws that were put into effect which would criminalize their actions.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyou might be interested to learn from mark fisher's capitalist realism concept
- wahnfrieden 4y agoor if you’re less interested in that concept and would rather see demonstrations of alternatives (and post agriculture, in societies with much higher than dunbar’s number nonsense), graeber/wengrow’s dawn of everything is a mind-altering read that collects modern anthro/archaeological evidence