[nonrandomstring]

> Makes we wanna throw away my phone and live in the woods

What I tried to aim for in Digital Vegan 1[] is to get people thinking about tech as a healthy balance.

It is actually rather common to have these extreme swings, all or nothing, total technological connection or living off berries in a woodland shack. It's called splitting in psychology, and the conditions around technology are geared to maximise it.

That's partly because it is so aggressive, in it's marketing, and peer pressure, in it's network effects created by deliberate lack of interoperability, by the way it is forced upon people. Young people are constantly bullied into over-connection by the idea they will be "left behind", that they will "miss out", and that a total cybernetic society of "ubiquitous" technology is "inevitable". All a total crock of shit of course. Nobody wants that except a few silicon valley pushers. But if you are immersed in that toxic narrative, which comes through the medium itself, it's hard for anyone to exercise rational choice, self-control and use technology in a moderate, healthy way.

So to me it makes sense to define "hacker" as someone who has mastery over technology. A master is not dominated by their own creations and desires. Part of mastery is choosing exactly how much, and what type of technology to use, and not allowing other people to foist that upon you. Real hackers make technological choices that may marginalise them, instead of just following the crowd.

[1] https://digitalvegan.net

[funcDropShadow]

> So to me it makes sense to define "hacker" as someone who has mastery over technology. A master is not dominated by their own creations and desires. Part of mastery is choosing exactly how much, and what type of technology to use, and not allowing other people to foist that upon you.

I like that definition and they way you argue. But don't forget that i.e. Meta and all other social networks are paying hords of hackers to screw with your emotions. I.e. you have a really capable opponent.

Why do I claim that social networks and other pay hackers to screw with our emotions? Actually I am convinced they don't care at all about the emotions of their users. They only care about their attention. Since, that is what is being sold to advertisers. Therefore, they do anything to prohibit users from staying in control of their social media use. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to use social media responsibly and healthy, but it is not easy.

[nonrandomstring]

I think you make a really good point. One should in no way underestimate the strength of an adversary. Nor the extent of ones own vulnerabilities. These guys have almost unlimited powers of money to employ PhDs in psychology, UX "attention engineering", disinformation, and other kinds of manipulation. Therefore "self-hacking" is kind of where it's at for this stage of the battle.

The plus side is that:

1) We know what they're up to now, and that is half the struggle.

2) We know that they are indeed adversaries (enemies of democracy and mental health), and that is also important.

Past that point, even a small number of us who are well educated, resourceful, and committed to clear communication, can have a significant impact. At the very least we can defend ourselves and help others to build intellectual self-defence.

And we are changing things. Even two years ago this discussion and the comments in this thread would have been unthinkable. We would have been shouted down by social media zealots and labelled "weirdos" (which I think is the very essence of hacker spirit - proud to be on the "weird" side of the fight right now).