I think there are flaws in this reasoning. To reiterate my point from before incase there was misunderstanding: Scale applies before computers. If it is matter

I think there are flaws in this reasoning. To reiterate my point from before incase there was misunderstanding: Scale applies before computers. If it is matter of subjugation now it would also apply 200 years ago to designated bread makers in London, or to clerical errors involving iron shipments in the 1860s that resulted in ship crew deaths. Even if you see those as the same as now, the poster I was responding to seemed upset by the otherness of the machine made decision, the algorithmic identity, which is the topic of the post, hence me making a point of it. Lets now consider your idea that scale makes things evil: Would any level of scale of production or service beyond your nearest friends and family implicitly become evil? No service is 100% efficient. Mistakes resulting in a few cents increased costs on any mass produced goods result in millions of dollars of cost absorbed by consumers. That isnt a statement of harm, it is just fact. But the alternative is no bread for most people. Its just a matter of practicality. Is all bread that is not homemade evil to you? Thirdly, companies often make corrections for minority error cases. This happens all the time in video games played by millions of people. They will patch out some bug that affected a small minority of players. There is a limited amount of effort that can be put forth to solve problems. Ranking problems from largest to smallest is not an unreasonable policy. I just dont know what your criticisms would lead you to propose as practical alternatives. It seems pointless.