Even more tinfoil-hat sounding is the use of ultrasound for tracking, yet also real.
What I find at our community is that many people are really worried, but - just like with climate change, the environment - they are talking the talk, but not willing to walk the walk. Problems seem overwhelming, and this perception can lead to defeatism, and actively ignoring the problems ("I can't do anything. Let the big shots figure it out").
@firstname.lastname@example.org your Switching Social pages are a good way to get people involved. Have them see they can make changes, however small. We need much more of such initiatives, and 'bind' them together to create an inclusive activist culture with *very* low barrier to entry @rysiek
@humanetech @email@example.com depending what you mean by "walking the walk". Consider: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals
Yes, agree with article, and very much at play in tech world too. But now you see ppl putting blame at big corp and not changing themselves. Blame is shared by e.g. taking convenience of the supermarket. Eat less meat and you can afford to shop at eco-friendly local store.
In tech too ppl want to fight harms, but when it comes to action, they are busy, busy, busy .. using google, FB, etc. out of convenience. We must prepare an easy path for them to engage
@humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial We cannot blame people for using the tools of surveillance capitalism as long as 99.99999% of all investment goes into surveillance capitalism. That’s victim blaming. It’s the same as telling people that they can solve climate change by altering their consumption habits while just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all carbon emissions. We need systemic regulation of abusers and investment in alternatives.
Agree. Should've used different word: sharing responsibility. With climate change this is clearest. Ppl talk about the world going to shit, then jumping in the plane to their next holiday, buying gas guzzler, tropical wood furniture etc. Encouraging the willingness to really change personal lifestyle is really hard. Of course capitalism does what it can to make ppl mindless consumers.
@humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial When you’re abused by a system and people tell you “why do you allow yourself to be abused?”, that’s the definition of victim blaming. A victim doesn’t have a responsibility not to be victimised. We, as a society have a responsibility to build a system that doesn’t tolerate abuse or abusers and definitely one that doesn’t make abuse the norm. The only guilty parties are the abusers themselves…
@humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial … we must definitely raise awareness but we must put the blame squarely in the right place while doing so. Instead of blaming people for shopping at supermarkets due to convenience (to use the example given), tax supermarkets and use it to subsidise local mom and pop stores so they can afford to be the convenient alternatives. But that won’t happen unless supermarkets are seen as a social ill instead of job creators, etc.
> It’s the same as telling people that they can solve climate change by altering their consumption habits ..
I think that is dangerous argument; a gliding scale. Sure, they cannot solve, but they can *help* solve in their own way. Saying their own small steps are insignificant risks ppl leaving the fight to higher levels, and the normal man to 'lean back and wait' for the outcome.
The argument also scales. In Netherlands we now have political dealmaking on climate change goals, and you hear serious arguments being made like 'NL contribution is a drop in the ocean anyway. US and China should really do something, and what we do is symbolic'. Which is terrible to get individuals to participate positively.
@humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial Capitalism is expert at shifting blame to the consumer and creating niche markets that allow (usually the privileged among them) to either avoid certain core externalities or rinse their consciences (or do both) through further/alternative consumption without actually threatening the system itself.
“Don’t use Google” is very different to “we should tax Google like tobacco”. Much talk about former, we need more on latter.
@aral @humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial This is wrong re: people not taking action. People HAVE to starve them of power. We legitimately cannot calmly allow corporations to control or run platforms of social communications. We can only do so much with regulations (slavery is still legal in the US and dozens of "first world countries").
@jalcine @humanetech @rysiek @switchingsocial I’m not saying people shouldn’t take action. Of course what every one of us does matters. But we’re not going to starve Big Anything (Food, Oil, Data, etc.) through consumption pattern changes among the privileged. There’s an effort on behalf of these corporate entities to limit “taking action” to altering your consumption habits as they know that is not a real threat. McDonald’s makes salads too.
Being all activists I think all of us are on the same page that things must change, and therefore action is needed. Coming back to my original point: to get more people to become activists the barrier to entry should be really low. Tiny improvements that lead one to the next, until they come to see the full spectrum of alternatives that is available and the toolset for true activism. A path to enlightenment
Should we take action on surveillance capitalism? Yes, absolutely. Should blame be put on users for using the tools they are coerced into using? No.
This is most starkly visible with "not good enough" approach. User A starts using the Fediverse, but is still on Facebook, and gets scolded for the latter instead of commended on the former.
@rysiek @dtluna @switchingsocial @humanetech @aral
Well I think this is biased, my view point there has never been that much food poisoning and probably because of regulations (preservatives, colors, plastic impossibility to scale down due to overcomplexities of standard regulations in food... ).
What I am trying to say is that in many cases following (.....)
that's specific to food
that's someone who led the development of environmental poisons
just a couple of examples, mind
Thanks for those very interesting references, however, at the time they are looking at, industrialized food still was a minor part of people's alimentation.
In fact I the more I think about it the more it feels that upscaling, regulation and poisoning, many issues are parallel, between food industrialization and social media centralization, it would be worth looking deeper at the comparison...
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!