[life-and-quiet]

I think "What Technology Wants" has the best response to this argument: it's correct, but most of us choose to live in a world of high technology anyway. He points out for example that Ted Kaczynski, who went to live in a hut in the woods, "had the freedom to harvest the potatoes whenever he wanted." Technology and automation ARE constraining, and their use does diminish freedom, but they also produce a world of options that is unimaginable to previous generations.

So I think WTW and Cal Newport and people like that have it right. The best we can all do as a society is to be aware of the influences of the technologies we select, to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, and to continuously make intentional choices.

[nonrandomstring]

> to reject the ones that don't serve our aims,

That is great so long as you have that choice.

Yes, we still can, but that is getting more and more difficult and socially costly to do.

Being in control of technology used to be about knowledge. It was the "geeks/nerds" who had an invisible advantage (until everyone else caught up) Digital technology took over the world, so we say "were all geeks now".

Today, being in control of technology is about courage and social self-determination/autonomy - it is the "weirdos" who have the upper hand in an enshitified surveillance society. Likewise, we're all going to become weirdos eventually.

If they're the same thing then maybe being a geek/nerd was never about technical capability in the first place, but about the ability to see the future more clearly.

[weireduuh4]

On DOP#1 we today have Autonomy and freedom...(sounding like a weekends true optimistic party-victiom)

...let me conclude

Are we not more free than ever before?

-surveillance capitalism -constantly nudged by algorithms fed by behavioral data -exposure to ads -influencing many -influence people use to lock the world into being a certain way

A nudge may (do) also detract (do I really need a fight-or-flight response to trigger in the middle of a meeting? No I do not.) -Why do promoting keep things wich people doesn't are or preciselier have/and be, that often seem to nudge people toward choices that someone else would prefer we make.

Prices are maximised as much as they can be while still allowing enough sales to sustain the system. There's no fairness in pricing nor a human element, it's automatically kicking the customer and patting them on the back at the same time in real time.

-They are making us more human, in terms of that free will is an illusion, at which point you have to wonder what "freedom" really means, if anything, and so the best we all can do as a society is to be aware, rejecting things don't serv our aims (celashion), and to continuously make intentional choices. Promoting: "As you have that choice!"

Hey wasn't there a "Yes cynism is the real good stuff"-topic two weeks ago...

hope that wasn't too...'whenever'... P-:

(moshes-head-rising victory-fingers)

[rsolva]

> The best we can all do as a society is to be aware of the influences of the technologies we select, to reject the ones that don't serve our aims, and to continuously make intentional choices.

I think this is the only practical and realistic approach on an individual level, but it will never be what most people do, and society as a whole will largely be formed by the constrains that technology, and it's owners and creators, dictate. Only governmental regulation can somewhat mitigate the worst consequence of the forces of technology.

But Elluls critique is broader than technology, he talks about technique itself. His observation is that technique and "mass society" as he calls it, is pushing us away from forming community and meaningful relations in the long run. This empty hole is easily filled by corporations selling us things that soothes our existential longings.