[porpoisely]

I agree with his sentiment that technological improvements lead to further concentration of wealth and power which is bad for people in general. Considering that wealth and power control governments, how does he envision governments offseting this trend of power/wealth accumulation?

At least here in the US, we are following europe and china in less freedom, greater government control and stronger centralized power/data/etc. I doubt canada is any better in this regard.

So where does he see government stepping in when it's in the government's self-interest and it's in the self-interest of the elite s to centralize even further and continue to accumulate wealth/power?

[bilbo0s]

The issue is that government has to have a good reason to step in. What are the issues that cannot be resolved by simply passing a law? (Which in and of itself is an interesting solution, as it requires strong central authority to enforce the new law in any case.)

Anyway, I think that's what techies have not outlined sufficiently. We need some clearly aggrieved class. Slaves for instance. No one had to write extremely complex explanations of how slaves might have been aggrieved. The government stepped in, and when they did it wasn't pretty. A more contemporary example that involved the tech companies were the revenge porn victims. No one had to explain in all these overly technical terms how revenge porn victims were aggrieved. Government stepped in, and they brought the hammer. A lot of people sitting in prison now for revenge porn and a lot more on their way.

That's what we need, a way to explain that everyone is hurt without writing out some doctoral thesis on economics that sounds like the Unabomber's Manifesto. Like slavery or civil rights, it should be simple enough a concept that your average teacher and preacher can talk about it in plain english and have it make sense.

It's not really that we techies have bad ideas necessarily ... I mean, it might be that but that wouldn't matter anyway ... because the real problem is that we just don't present our ideas in a plain, clear manner that every one from the Chief Justice to the homeless guy can understand.

[porpoisely]

The government didn't step in to end slavery because slaves were the "aggrieved class". The government stepped in because northern industrialists want to industrialize the entire nation and expand to the pacific. The southern elites wanted to protect an agrarian slave system. It wealthy elites looking to generate wealth via industrialization and factory farms vs wealthy elites looking to generate wealth via plantations and slaves.

As for your revenge porn example, I agree that it was right for the government to step in. But the government and the elites had nothing to lose by stepping in. It was no skin off their backs. My point is how are we going to get change when it's in the government and the elites interest to stay the course?

People don't generate change. Elites do. It's been that way from the american revolution to the civil war to civil rights.

[ilaksh]

"Revenge porn" is about the worst analogy possible. Oh, you're right, I forgot about government saving us from revenge porn -- I'm sure they will save us from everything else too.

1984 by Orwell was required reading for me in school (if I remember correctly, at least I hope it was).

I think you are right about having a simple message but its also unlikely that government will support the distribution of that message.