[uniqueuid]

That was nicely put.

I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom.

So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go forward (being better, or richer, or more sophisticated or whatever) without making that compromise. It's as if they saw the forking paths of the future, and none will end up without technical restraints, regardless of whether they do it or whether things just get worse and someone else then does them.

[vasco]

A lot of harm would be prevented if people didn't do bad shit under the assumption the next guy will do it if they don't. You're the next guy.

[trumpdong]

But they're right. The next guy will do it if you don't. And you'll be fired meaning you won't have any power any more, and the person who thinks DRM is good will be hired and become powerful in your stead. How does that help?

[vasco]

> You are the next guy

If you don't understand this, then you just don't understand.

[trumpdong]

Everyone can be the next guy. I can be him or the next next guy can. Do you know the prisoner's dilemma?

[vasco]

Yes, and I'm advocating for a specific quadrant.

[trumpdong]

You only get to choose a half. The previous guy chooses the quadrant.