The should make a movie in which a person gets expelled from society because of a bug. In his long quest for his reinstatement, he needs to endure the great corrupted algorithms trying to erase him for good.
edit: typo corrected, thanks.
Alas, watching Gilliam's other films gets more and more difficult, even though he tries to make the same movie again and again, for almost forty years now. But ‘Brazil’ was a home run on the first attempt.
Besides, you might be unfamiliar with the fact that Gilliam referred to ‘Bandits’, ‘Brazil’ and ‘Munchausen’ as a trilogy about the same thing. Which trilogy evidently ended up having at least nine films in it, excepting ‘F&L’ and me having not watched ‘Quixote’ yet (the latter's theme obviously follows the rest, though).
Perhaps Tom Stoppard is the missing ingredient.
I don't think I fully appreciate the assignments to read Kafka in college until these algorithmic bans, ousting from app stores, automated support, etc came along. Before that I figured the human element could, in most cases even if it required extreme difficulty, sort things out eventually. Then came these heuristic algorithms that have practically become the platonic ideal if Kafka-esque systems.
Edit: While Amazon is very far from perfect and has dropped several notches in customer service, I will say that they are still very good compared to others. I can still get ahold of a real person that has some leeway for professional judgement when addressing a problem.
You're asked to comment on so many things that you haven't heard of. 19th century English class anxiety, extreme poverty in London, slavery and race relations in America, midcentury dystopias (global) and unreasonable justice systems in central Europe (?). All things an ordinary Scandinavian teenager at the end of the 21st century is not going to have a whole lot of perspective on until they've lived a little bit longer.
But then when you have lived that little bit longer it makes sense, and Kafka is probably the one that will come closest, having travelled quite nicely into the modern world and having a corporate version that most people will run into. Next is the dystopias that we see on the news but don't recognise when living in.
For standard run of the mill customer support they're still pretty great. I was shopping for new wireless earbuds last fall and tried out a few different ones. 2 of the 3 were defective and I didn't like the third-- they hurt my ears to wear them.
For the two defective ones, I'm not sure why but the normal return button wasn't available and I had to go through chat support. I explained they were defective and I wanted to return them. They told me they'd issue the refund, no need to actually mail them back, so I didn't have to go through that hassle. And these were high end ear buds, a total of $400 worth of tech.
Amazon sucks. It should be broken up.
[1] https://artofelectronics.net/the-book/counterfeit-editions/
I expect them to at least collect the information that I received, or suspect I have, a counterfeit item, when I go for a return. They don't even bother to do that.
It's important, though, to not listen to the introduction for too long, because it gives away the ending.
Offering a false dichotomy between "be forced to allow those malicious actors an[d, sic] account" and "take actions to protect myself and my other paying customers" that have adverse impacts (many times with severe monetary damages) is externalizing the cost of poor gating control in the first place in the pursuit of pumping up subscriber numbers chasing the next funding round or quarterly call to brag upon. This is similar to financial services institutions flailing around "identity theft" to cover for gating control of their transactions implemented in pursuit of transaction liquidity over security.
Both take the externalized costs out of customer hides as both uncompensated time and monies spent to make good on unwinding transactions, and in making the aggregate customers pay for the direct costs of fixing the problematic transactions on the way, way back end. Both are a result of implementing poor security practices.
Both also will not scale to the coming era of hyper-converged global financial services. First mover advantage accrues to the one who fixes this challenge at the front end where they gate the transactions, cutting out the majority of the costs of fixing this on the back end after the transaction has been compiled and deployed into production so to speak, not coincidentally speeding up settlement, increasing liquidity, and grab the significant network effects that come with establishing such an infrastructure.