[segfaultbuserr]

+1. I think it’s misinterpreted without context. The quote came from a thought experiment about an extrapolated and exaggerated version of the future based on current tendencies in society. In that universe, everything is provided as a service, SaaS-style, and gives no control to their customers. Other topics in the same presentation included "what if personal privacy becomes a luxury?", where most people accept the invasiveness of such services in exchange of convenience, and only a minority can even afford their alternatives in practice.

The authors were not saying it’s the society that the World Economic Forum should be working to create, just that it seems remotely possible, certainly not a plan for a conspiracy. Rather, it’s more similar to a fiction like The Brave New World... On second thought, regardless of whether you treat it as a fiction or as an actual conspiracy, you get the same message, so I’d say the thought experiment is successful in that aspect.

[userbinator]

Do you think it was a warning, in the same way as 1984? Perhaps if it came from the EFF, FSF, or similar groups I would think of it as such, but given who the WEF represents, I highly doubt that. It is as much a thought experiment as it is an invitation to advance the state of "Everything as a Service" rent-seeking among those in power. Their vision of utopia is our dystopia.

[unlikelymordant]

It wasnt written by the WEF or anyone who works for the WEF, the story was written by danish MP Ida Auken. The stated goal of the exercise was to provoke thought. Which Id say it has done.

[alexvoda]

The point segfaultbuserr and unlikelymordant are making and I support, is that the WEF is not a conspiracy.

Yes, it is in the interest of many owners of corporations that own IP to push for XaaS model, a rent everything model. And some of those may attend the WEF.

But the WEF is not a conspiratorial group. And that often quoted and misunderstood fragment is not some declaration of their values.

People like to hate the WEF, or Soros, or the illuminati, or whatever because it gives the enemy a face and it directs the anger.

The reality is that most of the things damaging humanity are not masterminded by someone or some group. They happen organically due to the various self-interests of individuals.

Edit: Just to make it extra clear.

The difference is not in the interestes of the members of a group. You will find wide agreement that wealthy and powerfull people are interested in getting even wealthier and even more powerfull. Or at the very least retain all of their priviledges.

The difference is that conspiracy theories presupppose that the group has a structure, that the group can coordinate. And by extension, that the group has a leader, which if only you could KO, all of the worlds problems would be solved.

The structure is not there. And even if you eliminate all the individuals designated as enemies by a conspiracy theory, the greed and the pride is still there and they will be replaced by others.

[segfaultbuserr]

> Do you think it was a warning, in the same way as 1984? [...] Their vision of utopia is our dystopia.

I think it was a neutral thought experiment, and you're free to make your own interpretation, it's neither an utopia nor a dystopia.

> It is as much a thought experiment as it is an invitation to advance the state of "Everything as a Service" rent-seeking among those in power

I don't disagree here.

[lelandfe]

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/8-predictions-for-the...

"We asked experts from our Global Future Councils for their take on the world in 2030" is not much of a preface, if this was as purposefully exaggerated as you're saying.