I think people have to get more serious about separating science as a procedure from scientism (that is, philosophical issues that are often discussed in tandem). When one uses the phrase, “science denier”, it often means, “you don’t agree with my philosophy/metaphysics/economic policy” rather than “you deny these particular facts”, which causes people to be rightly concerned. I’m not optimistic that this is going to change anytime soon, but this, I think, accounts for many of the issues in current discourse.
Dumping chemicals in shared rivers/air vs placing ads in a privately owned space that users have the option of visiting. Not comparable.
The fact that more people use Gmail than Protonmail / others is a testament to their willingness to trade their eyeballs on ads for a service they don't have to spend their monetary resources on.
It's also worth asking - what makes you so confident about an absence of malfeasance from the largest, unbreakable corporate entity (ie. the government)?
It’s real, but it doesn’t always take the form of dollars (probably the most popular misconception). Warren Buffet is a billionaire, but most of that wealth is locked up in businesses that are producing products. If he really wanted all of that cash, he’d have to find a buyer or liquidate those businesses (probably at a loss).
True, but it’s perfectly reasonable for Apple to come to the conclusion that, “we just don’t want to deal with the risk” and move on. If they’re not using either GPLed or proprietary stuff, the problem goes away.
I’m having a hard time trying to decide if people are trying to dirty capitalism with “surveillance” or surveillance with capitalism. Seems like the latter has become a dirty word over night for no apparent reason.
Not arguing about the US being about to learn this the hard way. But when we get to that point, neither a pension nor a 401k will be able to save anyone.