3 ms·

I'm reading your comment as sarcasm, but I do have a non-sarcastic hot take on it. If we have to live in a panopticon I think access to the data should be avai

I'm reading your comment as sarcasm, but I do have a non-sarcastic hot take on it. If we have to live in a panopticon I think access to the data should be available to everyone. That eliminates the power imbalance and/or makes the idea of the thing distasteful to powerful people who might actually try to restore privacy and eliminate the panopticon.

hypercube33 6mo ago
Power is then moved to whomever owns the most computer power and perhaps education
- EvanAnderson 6mo ago
  That's what it is now. Computing power is just a proxy for capital.
potsandpans 6mo ago
> If we have to live in a panopticon... So that's where we are now? "If we have to live in the torture nexus, let's at least make it equitable"
- bee_rider 6mo ago
  I can see why people fall into the trap of calling for an equitable torment nexus: it is both cynical (it supposes everyone in power is corrupt and everyone at the top would oppose an equitable torment nexus) and also naive/optimistic (it supposes that we have any hope to actually impose an equitable torment nexus). But I think the latter factor wins out, so we should just oppose obviously bad things in a non-clever fashion.
  - EvanAnderson 6mo ago
    I don't see it as cynical. I'm just accepting the obvious reality. I have no power to stop what's happening. I might as well make the best of it for myself and my family, and hope it becomes so bad that people who actually do have the power to stop it do something about it. Maybe it'll rise to the level that enough individual citizens will call out for change, but I continue to be amazed at what people will put up with in the name of convenience, continuation of their lifestyle, and, as it relates specifically to surveillance capitalism, shiny digital doodads and baubles that bring them temporary joy. Capital being speech in the US, since I'm not a billionaire I have very little influence. I have optimism and hope for people doing good things locally, but absolutely no hope large-scale problems will ever be fixed. I feel like the US political system experienced some phase change in the last 50 years, has "solidified", and is now completely unable to do anything meaningful at scale. The New Deal couldn't happen today. The interstate highway system couldn't happen today. The Affordable Care Act started off as a watered-down, weakened version of what it could have been (because anything more radical would never have passed), and the private interests have had 20 years to chip away at it, sculpting it into a driver of revenue. Heck, we can't even build mass public transit at the level of cities. Private capital, meanwhile, soldiers on accomplishing its goals in spite of (or because of) our political gridlock. I'd love to feel differently.
    - hackable_sand 6mo ago
      That's called cynicism
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 6mo ago
  The fact that you couldn't identify it as sarcasm/satire is indictive of not having an accurate understanding of your opponents position. If you want to defeat your opponents, understand their calculus.
  - potsandpans 6mo ago
    I surely have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't even responding to you. Hmmmmm yes. Calculus. Defeating opponents. Indubitably.
kelseyfrog 6mo ago
If those wish to preserve privacy want to be effective, there needs to be a pragmatism in understanding differing opinions. Reducing opponents to caricatures and fighting those is a losers strategy. It will guarantee defeat. Being able to accurately articulate a position one doesn't possess themselves is necessary to effectively countering it.

hypercube33 6mo ago

Power is then moved to whomever owns the most computer power and perhaps education

EvanAnderson 6mo ago
That's what it is now. Computing power is just a proxy for capital.

potsandpans 6mo ago

> If we have to live in a panopticon... So that's where we are now? "If we have to live in the torture nexus, let's at least make it equitable"

bee_rider 6mo ago
I can see why people fall into the trap of calling for an equitable torment nexus: it is both cynical (it supposes everyone in power is corrupt and everyone at the top would oppose an equitable torment nexus) and also naive/optimistic (it supposes that we have any hope to actually impose an equitable torment nexus). But I think the latter factor wins out, so we should just oppose obviously bad things in a non-clever fashion.
- EvanAnderson 6mo ago
  I don't see it as cynical. I'm just accepting the obvious reality. I have no power to stop what's happening. I might as well make the best of it for myself and my family, and hope it becomes so bad that people who actually do have the power to stop it do something about it. Maybe it'll rise to the level that enough individual citizens will call out for change, but I continue to be amazed at what people will put up with in the name of convenience, continuation of their lifestyle, and, as it relates specifically to surveillance capitalism, shiny digital doodads and baubles that bring them temporary joy. Capital being speech in the US, since I'm not a billionaire I have very little influence. I have optimism and hope for people doing good things locally, but absolutely no hope large-scale problems will ever be fixed. I feel like the US political system experienced some phase change in the last 50 years, has "solidified", and is now completely unable to do anything meaningful at scale. The New Deal couldn't happen today. The interstate highway system couldn't happen today. The Affordable Care Act started off as a watered-down, weakened version of what it could have been (because anything more radical would never have passed), and the private interests have had 20 years to chip away at it, sculpting it into a driver of revenue. Heck, we can't even build mass public transit at the level of cities. Private capital, meanwhile, soldiers on accomplishing its goals in spite of (or because of) our political gridlock. I'd love to feel differently.
  - hackable_sand 6mo ago
    That's called cynicism
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
kelseyfrog 6mo ago
The fact that you couldn't identify it as sarcasm/satire is indictive of not having an accurate understanding of your opponents position. If you want to defeat your opponents, understand their calculus.
- potsandpans 6mo ago
  I surely have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't even responding to you. Hmmmmm yes. Calculus. Defeating opponents. Indubitably.

kelseyfrog 6mo ago

If those wish to preserve privacy want to be effective, there needs to be a pragmatism in understanding differing opinions. Reducing opponents to caricatures and fighting those is a losers strategy. It will guarantee defeat. Being able to accurately articulate a position one doesn't possess themselves is necessary to effectively countering it.