←back to thread

Are we the baddies?

(geohot.github.io)
692 points AndrewSwift | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.103s | source | bottom
Show context
afiodorov ◴[] No.44478380[source]
We should not underestimate the timeless human response to being manipulated: disengagement.

This isn't theoretical, it's happening right now. The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people, the shift from public feeds to private DMs, and the "Do Not Disturb" generation are all symptoms of the same thing. People are feeling the manipulation and are choosing to opt out, one notification at a time.

replies(5): >>44478542 #>>44478752 #>>44479222 #>>44479422 #>>44483888 #
1. praptak ◴[] No.44478752[source]
You cannot disengage from capitalism. The tricks you describe are perhaps useful to not be the slowest antelope in the herd but that doesn't mean you are fully free from being exploited.
replies(3): >>44478823 #>>44479237 #>>44479746 #
2. afiodorov ◴[] No.44478823[source]
Let's be clear: it's entirely possible to leave the "herd". People can and do go completely off-grid and thus disengage from capitalism. The crucial point is that the vast majority of us choose not to. That choice is what makes your "slowest antelope" analogy so much more complex.

An antelope's greatest desire is to be in the herd, because while it may contain a lion, the world outside contains a thousand wolves.

We've built a herd—society—that is incredibly effective at holding those wolves at bay: famine, plague, and chaos. We willingly participate because it provides "shields" our ancestors could only dream of. The problem isn't the herd itself; it's the lion that we allow to stalk within it.

What I am suggesting isn't to abandon this safety and comfort brought by modern capitalism. It's to improve the herd—to enjoy its protections while finding ways to tame, cage, or evade the lion of exploitation. What we're discussing here aren't futile attempts to escape, but vital tactics for building a better, safer herd for everyone.

replies(2): >>44479245 #>>44479774 #
3. somedude895 ◴[] No.44479237[source]
The most exploitative and unfree societies are and always have been the ones that rejected the free market.
replies(1): >>44481414 #
4. pjerem ◴[] No.44479245[source]
In essence, the lion is the monopolies and the ultra rich (who are consequences of monopolies … and inheritance).

Sure capitalism offered us the herd. But too big companies/people are just a net negative.

I hope someone today will have the courage to dismantle those big actors. Except, at least in the US, they now are protected by fascism.

5. vdupras ◴[] No.44479746[source]
Of course you can disengage, and very effectively: spend less, work less. Touch grass. It's called Asceticism and is as old as Philosophy.
6. zbentley ◴[] No.44479774[source]
Sure, a choice to opt out technically exists. But that common argument ignores two things:

First, the massive asymmetry of power involved in making people choose opting in (again and again, to greater and greater degrees).

Second, the fact that unrelated penalties—severe ones—are attached to choosing to opt out, by people and systems who want to discourage this behavior. It’s not like saying “choosing to not eat means you might be hungry”. That’s an intrinsic consequence; it has to happen. It’s not even like “choosing not to eat again and again means you might stunt your growth.” That’s intrinsic too, whether or not it’s intuitive.

No, the penalties we’ve attached to opting out are more like “choosing not to eat means you might go hungry, and also the people with hammers that specifically go after people that don’t eat will break your fingers.

7. GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.44481414[source]
Somalia: Land Of The Free
replies(1): >>44483435 #
8. GLdRH ◴[] No.44483435{3}[source]
Pierce Hawthorne compared it to Shangri-La