> ... what is wrong with blaming them when they actually do above things?
It is unfortunate because although the consequences are seismic the actual problem is subtle and abstract; and difficult to get people excited over. Basically, civilisations that protect the weak against the strong (and in this case, the strongest party is by far the government and the police) are more prosperous. The more the strong are empowered to act against the weak the worse the actual outcome gets. Although not on any one easy axis to measure.
I suspect part of it is that every political movement hinges on a small network of people organising it. These systems are fantastic plausible-deniability screens for powerful people to disrupt and destroy those networks to preserve the status quo. Like, for example, how China tries to operate.
You can see signs of similar systems developing in the US. Note that Trump then Biden were both the targets of official investigations (Trump-Russia, Bidan's son & Ukraine). That isn't going to go away, it'll probably be a long time before we see a president who isn't being investigated for something. The tools that people like Apple are building will be drawn in to the struggle, and not to promote truth or fairness but to destroy their support networks if they aren't friends of the Tim Cooks and Susan Wojcickis of the world. And make no mistake, powerful people aren't looking after your interests because you like the companies they run.
Plus on the way through they are going to be used to target minorities. That part is just sort of traditional, though incidental. Like when they decide to search people's phones for marijuana use but not cocaine and it turns out different racial groups use different drugs.
The only defence is blanket bans on activity that could be used to target people.
It is unfortunate because although the consequences are seismic the actual problem is subtle and abstract; and difficult to get people excited over. Basically, civilisations that protect the weak against the strong (and in this case, the strongest party is by far the government and the police) are more prosperous. The more the strong are empowered to act against the weak the worse the actual outcome gets. Although not on any one easy axis to measure.
I suspect part of it is that every political movement hinges on a small network of people organising it. These systems are fantastic plausible-deniability screens for powerful people to disrupt and destroy those networks to preserve the status quo. Like, for example, how China tries to operate.
You can see signs of similar systems developing in the US. Note that Trump then Biden were both the targets of official investigations (Trump-Russia, Bidan's son & Ukraine). That isn't going to go away, it'll probably be a long time before we see a president who isn't being investigated for something. The tools that people like Apple are building will be drawn in to the struggle, and not to promote truth or fairness but to destroy their support networks if they aren't friends of the Tim Cooks and Susan Wojcickis of the world. And make no mistake, powerful people aren't looking after your interests because you like the companies they run.
Plus on the way through they are going to be used to target minorities. That part is just sort of traditional, though incidental. Like when they decide to search people's phones for marijuana use but not cocaine and it turns out different racial groups use different drugs.
The only defence is blanket bans on activity that could be used to target people.