I don't think this: > the benefit vs downside of most new technology is assymetricaly in favor of the upsides Follows from this: > primarily due to human nat

I don't think this: > the benefit vs downside of most new technology is assymetricaly in favor of the upsides Follows from this: > primarily due to human nature being assymetrically good natured. Even though I agree with the second one. How many people are involved in adtech, finding new and ever more cynical ways to collect, mine, and exploit your data to manipulate consumer behavior to their benefit? A tiny minority. And yet their work influences nearly everyone in the developed world every day. How many people are willing to use nuclear weapons against their fellow humans? Again, a tiny minority, but it only takes a few. If the majority of people being good natured was a safeguard, the existence of nuclear weapons would be of no concern to anyone. There's an asymmetry you're not accounting for: the asymmetry of power wielded by those who are willing to use a technology for nefarious purposes. It only takes a handful of people (relatively speaking) to buy and sell the personal information of billions, to deploy a weapon, or to exploit for personal gain what is essentially a mind control device as you've described it. Also, while people may be "asymmetrically good natured", I would argue that they're also asymmetrically naive and ineffectual. Just look at domestic spying in the Five Eyes nations. That was considered a wild conspiracy theory for years until Snowden proved it was happening. Then after he proved it, tons of people just shrugged and said "well they're doing it to protect us, and I have nothing to hide anyway". A lot of that "good nature" people have isn't goodness, it's harmlessness. They're not good like Batman, they're good like a bunny rabbit. That's part of the reason it's so easy for the evil minority to wield such power over them.