Imagine however, that a machine objectively makes the better decisions than any person.
You can't know if a decision is good or bad without a person to evaluate it. The situation you're describing isn't possible.
the people who deploy a machine [...] should be accountable for those actions.
How is this meaningfully different from just having them make the decisions in the first place? Are they too stupid?
I live in the US. This American apathy and resentment of political power, this vaguely libertarian vote-with-your-wallet thing, is specifically what I'm criticizing. It's a kind of political advocacy that abstains from the reigns of power. It's also, like, a step above changing their profile picture.
I'm aware that everything is broken. But, it was less broken in the past. It'll be more broken in the future. I look around, though, and I see so little interest in reclaiming the power we've lost. Nobody wants to hold the reigns. Zohran does. He's trying something.
I worry that a lot of Americans, if not most of them, desperately want politics to go back to being something they don't have to think about; which isn't good—that's not a good thing. You don't win a game of chess by skipping your turn every time it comes up.
Okay, I'm trying not to be needlessly irate because I'm not yelling at you so much as I am lamenting the current state of political advocacy.
My problem is that you are confused. If we have enough people to do this:
If enough people are willing to say "no, I don't want to see that show enough" then there is the possibility of change.
Then we have enough people to enact regulations. These aren't different strategies, it's the same strategy. You need coordinated public willpower either way. You need something tangible to actually direct the currents of the ocean.
People, today, broadly, don't seem to believe that they can wield the government to their advantage at all. They don't even see it as an option. They don't have any ambition.
I'm not saying that you should spend money on a morally bankrupt company. I am saying that this won't accomplish anything. It isn't a solution. Certainly not if you don't believe the regulations option is even possible.
I still have hope, you know. But, it's dependent on people remembering the union, bar-brawl fistfights their grandpa used to get into.
I'm saying that people like boycotts more than they like actually doing anything. I think it's a power fantasy, personally.
That said, I don't expect anything to happen in the next 10 or 15 years given who's currently in charge, so may as well.
the only way to defeat them is by not giving them money
Is this what it's like to grow up on tiktok? Nobody has any ambition. It's all just bootstrapping and personal responsibility.
Getting around people's lack of willingness is the only way the year of the linux desktop will ever happen.
Like with global warming, people can just choose not to, you know.
The thing I love about linux people is their inability to abstract or do any kind of analysis.
— Me to somebody complaining about their depression.
I would like to imagine you say these same things every single time grocery store packaging gets a little bit smaller.
This makes you sound like a Jehova's witness.
The main problem is that linux people are politically linux people, their morals and identity are strongly attached to their OS choice, and they have no social skills.
You can advocate for linux to windows people all you like, you just can't be annoying. A lot of linux people are really fucking annoying.
I think there may be some social issues with a for-profit company being financially incentivized to promote and sell pedophilia to people.
How would you rather deal with this? A boycott? Do you have money in child sex doll manufacturing that you can withhold?
That's not really what this is about. You're trying to assess this on a personal freedom level when what we're talking about is a guy with a megaphone.