I think it’s the opposite. The _distrust itself_ was pushed by those looking to stir up outrage, generate engagement, and turn it into votes.
Case in point: look at all the people who’ve now built their entire political identities atop this unfalsifiable distrust. They’d even distrust “stand further apart” if the wrong person said it.
> I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.
This is the crux. Outrage spreads way faster than the boring truth.
I don’t disagree. It’s dehumanizing, and they have a legitimate complaint. In almost any other context I’d be on the side of the workers here. I just have a hard time seeing Meta employees as innocent or helpless bystanders.
It’s a bit hard to feel sympathetic here. Those signing this petition actively enable and profit from one of the most pervasive surveillance networks ever built.
Funny how much easier it is to tolerate something when it only affects other people.
Classic. So tell me how I can just not deal with the credit bureaus? Or tax filing companies? Or any site that sells my data to adtech, without totally secluding myself from the modern web? Where’s the supposed competition?
What you’re saying is functionally equivalent to “just deal with it,” since ultimately people will choose to have their privacy violated over the lifelong Sisyphean task of trying to avoid all of that. That doesn’t mean people don’t care about privacy, it’s just the current equilibrium in our broken system.
> I think we have been stuck in this way of life so long we can't imagine an alternative.
Look at the macro data. The overall median wage for all American workers combined has also drastically lagged behind economic productivity since the 70s.
Clearly that's not a good proxy either then... even the article itself says:
> Ultimately, concerns over inequality should focus on differences within labor compensation rather than the split between labor and capital.
The main issues I can see are:
- This "labor share" includes multi-million dollar executive pay packages, so it's heavily skewed towards the 1%
- It also completely ignores unrealized capital gains and loans against them, which is how the ultra-wealthy actually fund their lifestyles tax-free, with a tiny income on paper
From a functionalist perspective, there is no “you” sitting in one body or another.
The experience of “you” is just your specific memories and world model, continuously updated with sensory input.
If another body “runs” the same exact pattern, that is you. Theres no link and nothing was transferred; the pattern of thoughts and memories is all “you” ever was.
Same as playing the same song on two different speakers. Nobody asks what links the song across them; it’s the same song wherever it’s played. You’re just a far more complicated pattern on a far more complicated speaker.
You might ask, “but why am I this pattern?” Because this is the specific pattern modeling itself from the inside in asking that question.
Good faith? All you’ve done in this thread is vaguepost and talk down to people who opened up about something they’re struggling with.
You said tech can’t fix human problems. I gave you examples. You dodged with something cryptic about mental health. al_borland said they’re helping a friend off these platforms and you told them “good luck fixing your own problem.” gf263 said they’ve been trying for ten years, and you said they’re “resistant to positive change, and that’s dangerous to me.”
Here’s what you’re actually doing: reframing an ordinary struggle as a pathology someone’s in denial about, which puts you above them and turns their disagreement into “resistance.” It’s unfalsifiable. Any tool that works didn’t fix the real problem; anyone who pushes back isn’t ready yet. You’ve built a position where you can’t be wrong and everyone else needs help.
Do you actually want people to solve their problems, or do you just want to talk down to them and feel bigger? Ask yourself who really has the problem here.