Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 05:24:37 JST AKingsbury

   @Sage7225

   Really? Ask the average "working class" person if they are doing better or worse than, say their great-grandparents were doing at the same age. Ask them about the smartphone they had, for example.

   • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 05:24:37 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @AlexanderKingsbury @Sage7225

     Ah, yes, because it doesn't matter if people can't afford housing, healthcare, or food if they have a smartphone to distract themselves. What a dumbass. Why don't you try talking to an average working class person who's experiencing any of the things I listed and ask them if they don't mind the suffering because they have a fucking smartphone.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 05:31:05 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Fragarach

     @Fragarach @Sage7225

     You made the right call.

   • Embed this notice
     Fragarach (fragarach@beige.party)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 05:31:06 JST Fragarach

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom @AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social @Sage7225

     Just read some of his other responses and blocked. Can't be doing with that sort of apologist.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 09:29:58 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     a smartphone is a tracking, surveillance and exploitation device. having one is a net loss, even if you didn't have to pay for it.
     翠星石 and mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: like this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 09:39:58 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     That's certainly an assessment you can have. Plenty of people clearly consider having them a net positive. For what it's worth, you can prevent tracking and surveillance.

     Tell me; do you have a smartphone?

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 15:19:57 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     by the amount of pressure and demands I get to have one, it doesn't look like people are doing that voluntarily
     
     you're deluded to think you can prevent tracking and surveillance. the devices are made for that
     
     technically, I own a smartphone or two. the one with my simcard to get SMS is a Neo Freerunner, older than the first iPhone. it's not what people would call a smartphone by modern standards, and I only use it to receive SMS at home, because some services I have been forced to use still believe that sending a 6-digit number by SMS is a security add.
     
     the other "smartphone" I own is a samsung galaxy running replicant. it's simcard interface has long been broken. occasionally, when its charged, it's plays camera and pocket watch. I tried it as a phone briefly before the simcard interface broke, and I quickly found that android-based systems were not for me.
     
     it's getting increasingly difficult to interact with banks and governments and whatnot without carrying a tracking device running remotely-controlled software. I've won lawsuits in justice over banking services I hired that worked on the web on browsers of my choice, and that are being discontinued, demanding that I buy and carry an ankle tracking device for pockets of their choice and hire a surveillance service. the bank seems to have chosen to disregard the court order, and a number of services I used to rely on are not even available at branches, only with apps. but surely that's all absolutely voluntary and net positive, you say.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 21:35:38 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     I do say that they are voluntary, yes. There are many banks out there; you don't NEED to use this bank or that bank. And yes, I say they are a net positive according to many people; otherwise, they would not have them. You can call me "deluded" all you like.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 04:07:22 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     yeah, there are many banks, and all of them are joining this bandwagon. I can even understand the technical reasons for them to prefer to target a duopoly of platforms that enable remote control over the full range of diversity of user-controlled software and devices. that a population that has long "chosen" ms-windows, and that finds exploitation devices smart, finds such things net positives tells me more about the population than about the things themselves. there's a reason exploiters work hard to keep the huge downsides out of people's eyes and minds
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 04:18:30 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     now, I don't deny that there are desirable features in these devices. people are attracted by them, to the point that many go for them even when they're aware of the serious problems that come with them.
     
     that's why the duopoly works so hard to suppress the choice that people would prefer, namely having the desirable features without any of the tracking, surveillance, and exploitation they bundled with them.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 05:44:33 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     It can say all sorts of things about the population, but that's a different question. Whether or not something is a net positive to someone is subjective; just because YOU don't consider it a net positive is definitive only for you.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 06:41:54 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     I agree there's a significant subjective element to the assessment. whether the subjective assessments match reality despite the underinformation is where we appear to disagree on. I don't think it's that people misperceive or exaggerate the upsides, it's that the downsides are kept largely out of sight, they have long term consequences that are hard to grasp and that are introduced piecemeal, and they're bundled together with upsides while choices that separate them are suppressed. all these manipulation artifices wouldn't be needed if people actually considered it a net positive.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 06:46:48 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     There is no such thing as "subjective assessments matching reality". If there is something for it to match, it's objective, not subjective. What humans can and do value has no objective scale against which it can be measured.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 07:02:54 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     the assessment ought to take into account subjective elements, that the user is likely aware of, and objective elements, some of which are intentionally kept out of sight of users. taking only the subjective elements into account is a recipe for mistake, and so would be disregarding them. likewise the objective elements. both need to be well known to be weighed properly. guess why the huge objective downsides, short and long term, are largely hidden from sight?
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 07:06:59 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     If there are both objective and subjective terms, the aggregate is, by nature, subjective. When you ask about why a "huge objective downside" is hidden...do you have a specific example?

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 07:37:49 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     sure. just look at the market caps of the companies that exploit us through these devices, for an easily observable one. look at the terms and conditions they demand device-users to adhere to.
     
     picture an ultraportable communication device that doesn't track you, that doesn't control you, that doesn't surveil you, and that does everything you'd like such a device to do for you (https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#0G). compare with what the snooping remotely-controlled device you carry on your pocket, and realize its huge opportunity cost, both objective and subjective. see the problem?
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 07:40:53 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     Not really, no. You're pointing at several things; market caps, terms and conditions, opportunity cost of this versus that....which specific thing do you assert is a "huge objective downside"?

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:31:35 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     see?, that's one of the tricks: the overall huge loss is a sum total of many many many small things that, looked at individually, may seem not worth fighting for, and some larger things that are disguised so people don't take them into account
     
     consider all the things you could do with a pocket device that didn't take your freedom away for the benefit of their business, whether to sell you things you could make or others could make for you at lower prices; to gather data about you and sell to others or use to their own advange; to influence you in your future choices for their benefit?
     
     consider all the thoughts you could have had if you weren't permanently exposed to the brain-rotting influence of dopamine-addictive programs and networks that keep you hooked, entertained, distracted, and busy, while stealing your time and attention and exposing you to ads and toxic propaganda?
     
     you might even have come to this realization already if this black mirror offered opportunities for reflection. but unless you're trolling me with these questions, it would seem that you're completely unaware of all the harm and losses you experience because of the bundling of harmful exploitative techniques with desirable features
     
     and I haven't even got to the darker sides of surveillance capitalism, with their ill effects on privacy, freedom, and other human rights
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:38:45 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     I'm aware of some things I consider harmful, but I am also not arrogant enough to imagine that that somehow makes them objectively harmful. So are you unable/unwilling to provide one specific example? Just one.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 09:19:15 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     I've given many, but I suppose some are too abstract for you, or you choose to disregard them instead of adding them up
     
     here's a concrete scenario with some of the small and not so small ones that add up,:
     
     say you give in a buy a snooping device and install the app that provides you with access to some service you wish, that you used to get on a web site using a browser of your choice on a computer of your choice
     
     at some point in the future, long before the new device becomes too old and dies, the service provider discontinues support for that version of the operating system, and the supplier of that operating system won't provide upgrades, and the device is locked up so you can't get an upgrade from a third party.
     
     so now you have a device that could work for you, but was turned into a dead weight, it no longer fulfills the reason you bought it for because of supplier's whims, you have to buy a new one with all the environmental and monetary cost that implies, and take the old one to pollute a landfill somewhere
     
     now multiply this by all the different services you might wish, with all their whimful suppliers; by some 7bi people who have been led to carry such devices and have to upgrade them every few years, and if you think that alone is not a serious problem, I don't think I want to talk to you any more
     
     and these few issues are just the tip of the iceberg. take some time away from the brain-rotting device and do some thinking about the many other more abstract scenarios, and help us make things better
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 09:21:23 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     Yes, you've given many; I asked for a specific one, so that we can discuss it. If you can't manage to discuss a single issue, I don't imagine you can meaningfully discuss many at the same time.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 11:08:11 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     surely you understand the concept of "sum of many small things"? it's kind of a reverse gish-gallop, in which adding (or not) any of one of the very many small things doesn't make much of a difference to the whole, or may seem like too small a thing to worry about or to resist from, but whose sum total makes it a disaster
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 11:13:37 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     Yes, I understand the concept of summing things. I also understand that, if someone cannot manage to discuss any of those things by itself, they probably cannot say anything worthwhile about the aggregate.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 13:19:19 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to
     ad hominem much? you could have chosen to discuss any of the many things I mentioned by itself, but you kept moving the goal post asking for more. I take it that you're not interested in an honest discussion, so, have a life
   • Embed this notice
     AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 18:31:05 JST AKingsbury

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     "you could have chosen to discuss any of the many things I mentioned by itself, but you kept moving the goal post asking for more."

     Absolutely false. I never asked for more, at all. I asked you to pick one issue to discuss. Just one.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Saturday, 04-Jan-2025 10:38:20 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     like, I'm concerned about a thunderstorm and the flooding it's causing, and the troll demands me to identify one droplet to discuss. doh!
   • Embed this notice
     A Wolf in Cheap Clothing (awolfincheapclothing@calckey.world)'s status on Monday, 06-Jan-2025 23:42:38 JST A Wolf in Cheap Clothing

     in reply to

     @AlexanderKingsbury@mastodon.social @Sage7225@mas.to
     
     So having a advance computer in your pocket makes everything better!? What about not being able to afford a house, car, food, (if in the US) healthcare!? What about average lifespans declining!? What about a world that is increasingly inhospitable to human life, due to climate change!? What about a society that's increasingly filled with hatred and violence!?
     
     Kingsbury you are obviously a MAGAt and your blocked!