Funny how much easier it is to tolerate something when it only affects other people.

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.

I agree.

Yeah, by outsourcing it to some shady company that sells all your private info to the lowest bidder. See Discord for example.

> 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

Given everything else this administration has done, you now decide to accept their stated intentions at face value?

Ahahaha. Just like when he marshaled resources to buy Twitter?

More like he just cracked the whip, and the actual smart people worked day and night to figure it out, or else they’re fired.

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.

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.

Yes you can.

Screen time limiters, nicotine patches, putting the cookies out of sight, all of these things empirically work better than willpower alone.

> No condescension - and if you’ve been trying for ten years, there’s clearly a misunderstanding.

Oh please. “Why are you depressed? Just be happy or you must not be ready for a change. No condescension btw.”

If you can so much as imagine a society organized around some other source of happiness, there’s your evidence by counterexample.

Every functioning society on earth regulates food drugs and infrastructure. We lived through the unregulated version for centuries, and it took mountains of dead children and poisoned workers to win the rules we have now; tearing them down just means ordinary people will pay the price all over again.

Capture is a failure mode of every institution humans have ever built, including the courts we presumably still want. The answer is to design better institutions, not to get rid of them and hope things work out.