6 ms·

If there's one thing I've learned from technology, it's that people put way too much faith in technology People want to believe that the tech is good enough to

If there's one thing I've learned from technology, it's that people put way too much faith in technology People want to believe that the tech is good enough to build this advertising simulacrum the guy in the video refers to. It's all a fantasy People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking? Anyone who talks about tech like it's some kind of deity clearly shouldn't be talking about it, or at least only for the sake of marketing

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
[flagged]
- viknesh 3y ago
  The contents of the link are so far from what you describe them as it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Put another way, what is the government even bringing to the table? Clearly Twitter had the tools to attempt to sway the election on their own, so why do they need to meet with <insert 3 letter agency>?
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    Why would a three letter agency need to meet with a head of safety at twitter? If they need an IP address from someone illegal, I'm sure there's someone down the chain answering to law enforcment. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601359872528101376/photo/1 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601359872528101376/photo... Twitter has a lot to gain by being friendly with the government... regulations can pass or not-pass, government grants can be given, etc.
    - dgellow 3y ago
      You’re speculating based on nothing concrete, don’t be surprised if people label you as a propagandist. Taibbi isn't really a bastion of truth and credibility, he analyze almost everything through a conspiracy lens without providing good justifications other than “look at the map of disconnected dots I drew, it’s all clear now!”.
- pastage 3y ago
  You go from nothing to a hundred, please prove things in smaller smaller steps.
tsunamifury 3y ago
I think you think you’re being a realist. But if you have worked at the top end of any big tech company you can see they are both incompetent idiots but also wielders of incredible power… hand in hand with government. I used to think like you, it was all a conspiracy. But it’s not.
javajosh 3y ago
Technology gives people more plausible excuses to believe what they want to believe. It only has to stand up to the barest scrutiny. "Everything my tribe does is great; everything yours does is horrible. Therefore any evidence against my tribe is fabricated, any evidence against yours is accurate." And so on. This is already happening at scale.
- pyinstallwoes 3y ago
  Surely one need no technology to believe in any thing they wish. The only constraint on any mind is the language with which one is constrained by. In that sense the only technological limit would be language itself, which is an interesting place of contemplation in its own right.
unhammer 3y ago
> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control. The world is rudderless. -- Alan Moore
- j4yav 3y ago
  I think it's both true that the world is rudderless (or maybe there are million different rudders all turning in different directions) and there are also powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do awful things. A real winning combination.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    At that point, is your glass half empty, or half full? There are powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do good things.
- i8comments 3y ago
  I think that is an oversimplification with some truth to it, but also not true.
  - cassepipe 3y ago
    Yes, it would more correct to state that there are various competing albeit unequal centers of power at the top (made of smaller centers of power themselves) and that not even the biggest is absolute. That makes for an interesting (if you are observer/participant) or frightening (if you are a victim) life. Would you get behind such a statement ?
- pphysch 3y ago
  No "one" (individual) is in control, because the human mind is limited. But constellations of individuals with common interests are absolutely in control. The unilateral dictator is largely a mythical creature. Cabals of powerful individuals with shared ideas are not.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking? Power. Cowardice. People saying "it's all fine" because they don't want to live in a world where the only reason they're not in fear or pain is because they kissed the ring. It would not reflect well on them, so they choose to view it differently. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... If the above is possible, why wouldn't it be possible where the stakes and capabilities are orders of magnitude higher? Plus, the problem isn't to so much to keep anything "secret". Usually it's enough to offer another view point aligned with power, that people can flock to out of cowardice and/or as a token of allegiance. We all know who Assange is, we know that he was hounded and tortured for calling attention to war crimes. So? Nothing happened to anyone responsible, and at best Assange might be free, one day. Similar for Snowden. So yeah, why wouldn't people just blow whistles all the time, right? And come to think of it nobody -- that is, none of the power centers, all sorts of "sides" in all sorts of conflicts -- can stand honesty. They may disagree on the lies they want to push instead, but they all agree that the truth is not an option, knowingly or not. No need to plan anything, they can just go by smell and instinct and they'll work together to persecute people with integrity without even realizing they're doing it. "Omniscience" in this context certainly doesn't include being aware of oneself, it's more like a stalker who knows every little detail about the life of their victim, but has no clue that they themselves have a massive problem. "It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us." -- Adam Curtis
- scandox 3y ago
  The problem with Curtis' "weirdos" theory is that it discounts the existence of the weirdos themselves. The weirdos exist and other weirdos know (better than anyone) that other weirdos exist. So they have to deal with a world of weirdos. They need to enter that reality. Which in doing they also do perpetuate. But it's nonsense to imply that it is just imposed on us and could somehow be dispensed with. It has to exist and in existing it has to be dealt with.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

[flagged]

viknesh 3y ago
The contents of the link are so far from what you describe them as it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Put another way, what is the government even bringing to the table? Clearly Twitter had the tools to attempt to sway the election on their own, so why do they need to meet with <insert 3 letter agency>?
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  Why would a three letter agency need to meet with a head of safety at twitter? If they need an IP address from someone illegal, I'm sure there's someone down the chain answering to law enforcment. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601359872528101376/photo/1 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601359872528101376/photo... Twitter has a lot to gain by being friendly with the government... regulations can pass or not-pass, government grants can be given, etc.
  - dgellow 3y ago
    You’re speculating based on nothing concrete, don’t be surprised if people label you as a propagandist. Taibbi isn't really a bastion of truth and credibility, he analyze almost everything through a conspiracy lens without providing good justifications other than “look at the map of disconnected dots I drew, it’s all clear now!”.
pastage 3y ago
You go from nothing to a hundred, please prove things in smaller smaller steps.

tsunamifury 3y ago

I think you think you’re being a realist. But if you have worked at the top end of any big tech company you can see they are both incompetent idiots but also wielders of incredible power… hand in hand with government. I used to think like you, it was all a conspiracy. But it’s not.

javajosh 3y ago

Technology gives people more plausible excuses to believe what they want to believe. It only has to stand up to the barest scrutiny. "Everything my tribe does is great; everything yours does is horrible. Therefore any evidence against my tribe is fabricated, any evidence against yours is accurate." And so on. This is already happening at scale.

pyinstallwoes 3y ago
Surely one need no technology to believe in any thing they wish. The only constraint on any mind is the language with which one is constrained by. In that sense the only technological limit would be language itself, which is an interesting place of contemplation in its own right.

unhammer 3y ago

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control. The world is rudderless. -- Alan Moore

j4yav 3y ago
I think it's both true that the world is rudderless (or maybe there are million different rudders all turning in different directions) and there are also powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do awful things. A real winning combination.
- fragmede 3y ago
  At that point, is your glass half empty, or half full? There are powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do good things.
i8comments 3y ago
I think that is an oversimplification with some truth to it, but also not true.
- cassepipe 3y ago
  Yes, it would more correct to state that there are various competing albeit unequal centers of power at the top (made of smaller centers of power themselves) and that not even the biggest is absolute. That makes for an interesting (if you are observer/participant) or frightening (if you are a victim) life. Would you get behind such a statement ?
pphysch 3y ago
No "one" (individual) is in control, because the human mind is limited. But constellations of individuals with common interests are absolutely in control. The unilateral dictator is largely a mythical creature. Cabals of powerful individuals with shared ideas are not.

johnnyworker 3y ago

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking? Power. Cowardice. People saying "it's all fine" because they don't want to live in a world where the only reason they're not in fear or pain is because they kissed the ring. It would not reflect well on them, so they choose to view it differently. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... If the above is possible, why wouldn't it be possible where the stakes and capabilities are orders of magnitude higher? Plus, the problem isn't to so much to keep anything "secret". Usually it's enough to offer another view point aligned with power, that people can flock to out of cowardice and/or as a token of allegiance. We all know who Assange is, we know that he was hounded and tortured for calling attention to war crimes. So? Nothing happened to anyone responsible, and at best Assange might be free, one day. Similar for Snowden. So yeah, why wouldn't people just blow whistles all the time, right? And come to think of it nobody -- that is, none of the power centers, all sorts of "sides" in all sorts of conflicts -- can stand honesty. They may disagree on the lies they want to push instead, but they all agree that the truth is not an option, knowingly or not. No need to plan anything, they can just go by smell and instinct and they'll work together to persecute people with integrity without even realizing they're doing it. "Omniscience" in this context certainly doesn't include being aware of oneself, it's more like a stalker who knows every little detail about the life of their victim, but has no clue that they themselves have a massive problem. "It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us." -- Adam Curtis

scandox 3y ago
The problem with Curtis' "weirdos" theory is that it discounts the existence of the weirdos themselves. The weirdos exist and other weirdos know (better than anyone) that other weirdos exist. So they have to deal with a world of weirdos. They need to enter that reality. Which in doing they also do perpetuate. But it's nonsense to imply that it is just imposed on us and could somehow be dispensed with. It has to exist and in existing it has to be dealt with.