Hacker News Reader

> If you are under the panopticon, you are not you any longer. You respond to please others, not yourself. You are in fact a slave.

Under this line of reasoning, any level of societal participation is tantamount to slavery. I understand the what you're angling at and I agree to some extent; however, can you provide a viable alternative?

> Anything that enforces the hierarchical system, making it ever more restrictive, has blood on their hands in my view.

Society in and of itself is a hierarchy. Anything that contributes to society is therefore something that enforces the 'hierarchical system.'

You don't have to participate in society if you wish otherwise. The world could always use more mountaintop hermits.

> Under this line of reasoning, any level of societal participation is tantamount to slavery. I understand the what you're angling at and I agree to some extent; however, can you provide a viable alternative?

I understand why you ask this. I will respond in a way that I know will be unsatisfactory to you.

The way I see it, is all the actions that we are expected to take that are in service to self (i.e. getting yours). Society is geared up to make that seem perfectly natural. In fact, you/we all need to get acquainted with morality. The first step of that is to understand the world for oneself, to take no one's word for it but instead to apply the scientific method personally. Accept that you do not 'know' much, very little is proven. What you have are beliefs masquerading as knowledge - this is to say you have negative knowledge (aka crap).

What I'm really trying to get at, is that social change is an effect of the actions of all of us in aggregate. To make the world better, one can only attempt to makes oneself better. Be the change you want to see. And that is done by following one's heart/conscience/spirit or whatever you want to term it.

> Society in and of itself is a hierarchy. Anything that contributes to society is therefore something that enforces the 'hierarchical system.'

> You don't have to participate in society if you wish otherwise. The world could always use more mountaintop hermits.

Its not as easy as you might think to not participate in society! To get away from it completely is impossible. People I have never voted for, or agree with, demand, by force if necessary, that I contribute to and support their system.

Right now, you can see the next generation system that has been in design for us. Citizen scores, UBI (carrot), access (or not) to 'social' goods eg public transport, loans (stick), free movement, limited use of energy, water, etc without the 'administrators' say so. Smart water meters, electricity, 5g is the backbone to that.

Still, I don't discount the mountaintop - but I don't think there will be peace there either!

I have to downplay part of your threats, at the risk of sounding sheelplishly naive: but access to water and electricity is already under the control of "the administrators", and has pretty much forever. Even in the case it's delivered as a "public" service, the "administrators" were somehow expecting you to pay some sort of bills.

However, although I know some people get their water and electricity shut down, that's still regarded as extreme, and law tends to make it harder and harder over time.

The Internet itself (once a luxury, less than two decades ago) is slowly becoming considered as a "necessity" that should not be shut down. [1]

I understand your point that software is increasingly making dystopia technologically possible, and that geeks should beware how they use their skill - but I wonder how surprising and underrated law and social norms can be as counter-forces.

(Also, it made me smile to see UBI in the list of "evils" that are now "fashionable" to bash on HN. ;) )

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access#Ensur...

> I mean, someone wrote these 'track and trace' apps. This is to say, they are explicitly enabling the government to track every single move of its citizens. Is that ok? Not to me. They should have resigned rather than play their part in increasing governmental control.

To put yourself in their shoes: they may argue that it’s not ok to “let” bad actors abuse and injure citizens. Many of the people who have been in these positions and talked about it publicly have talked about how they felt like they were doing the right thing. Whether that be tracking child abusers or terrorists or “threats to national security”, they felt driven to make the tools to track and trace these people.

There is always an edge case to justify the loss of freedoms. In the fullness of time, it is revealed that case was just a pretext that doesn't really occur. But the genie is out of the bottle then.

The means is that TV/media play up edge case as if it was important. Once the justification is accepted, the freedom is taken and does NOT come back.

(Media, in case you haven't been paying attention is part of the governance system - driving what is acceptable to think about on a daily basis. No, propaganda is not to be found in China, Russia only - in fact the Western societies are far worse; we are propagandised from cradle to grave.)

Have any of the pre-9/11 freedoms we lost, come back? Travel restrictions, water bottles on planes, etc? They have not. So, an event occurs, this is played up to the n-th degree to justify the loss of control in our lives, and slowly slowly we tip-toe into overt control and domination by the system. In a way you can say that humanity's well-meaning nature - the wanting to do the right thing - leaves us open to these sorts of attacks - ie our good natures are weaponised against us.

For those who apparently can't be bothered to look before criticizing: Ethics is in fact in the course.

Learning ethics for building software is overrated. More often than not, those building it aren't the same ones who decided to implement the unethical behavior. How about we examine the failure of teaching proper ethics to MBAs instead?

https://cmu-313.github.io/lectures/08-Ethics.pdf

Is that a joke? I don't care what Harvard has to say about Ethics! Harvard!! The educators of the master administrative class. That ethically outsourced all of the jobs to the rest of the world.

It says:

Code of Ethics As an ACM member I will .... Contribute to society and human well-being. Avoid harm to others. Be honest and trustworthy. Be fair and take action not to discriminate. Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. Give proper credit for intellectual property. Respect the privacy of others. Honor confidentiality.

Fine words! But take a look at the first - "Contribute to society and human well-being." Contribute to 'society'. 'Society' is a fiction. Its not a real thing - its an idea in people's heads. You could just as easily say contribute to stones.

People are the only thing doing the experiencing. Individuals. You can say 'society', but this just a way of avoiding talking about and to individuals.

Ethics questions are for the individual to work out. And it takes work! And the worst thing is that everyone thinks they know what they mean. That they are ethical. That its others that need the educating!

If you haven't worked out that governance is more than the political class by now, we don't have much hope! Educational institutions are as much a part of the problem as media institutions, as politicians, as we are ourselves. In fact, they are probably the worst - taking children and teaching them that the government is good, it loves them, that they are not slaves.

When government is slavery.

And it takes a lot for an individual to turn around and point the finger at themselves, accept some of the blame and make a change.

Most will take the ethic-free paycheck, rather than start to consider how their effort is creating a dystopian future for us all.

Internet == spy

Computer == spy

Chip == spy

Agreed. The internet, computer and chips though can be (more) neutral with care. They can serve you.