[flagged]
Bad technology. Nobody would object to smarter cars with usable controls that didn't spy on you and have security holes. People, even here, would love smart TVs if they started as fast as the dumb ones, didn't have ads, didn't spy on you, and were generally actually in the user's control. People aren't against tech, they're against awful tech that's a straight downgrade from what came before.
Actually, this goes for the rest of your points, not just 2.
My comment was in reply to someone who said they expected HN to be tech apologists. People down voted me because they took it as a standalone comment complaining about HN.
Quite annyoing
I've seen many people complaining about modern safety features such as back up cameras and collision detection, I wouldn't call that bad technology.
Like with backup cameras that we just don't want to pay for. I've been driving for 20+ years and never once bumped my car. So the safety aspect isn't really relevant. But when I get told "We added this backup camera for free, so you're saving 500$". Honestly I'd rather have you shave 500$ off the price of the car.
I've actually had that conversation about bluetooth in my current car. 8 years old and I've never used the bluetooth. It was tech for tech sake. It adds no value.
I have literally never heard a complaint about reversing cameras in my life
The idea is that the cameras require a large display on the dashboard. If you could sell a car without them, we might have a cheaper class of small street-legal vehicles with simpler controls.
Sadly, with electric vehicles being thousands of kg heavier than ICE vehicles, kei-style cars would probably get a lot of people killed if they were introduced to the US today.
3. Tech shouldn't imply or require privacy compromises.
4. Piracy tools often drive innovation and technological progress. (Not to mention would we have subscription music services or even Netflix's non-DVD-by-mail business without the market pressure from piracy? Would they cost more?)
5. How does a position or preference on a business model imply pro- or anti-tech?
And even #2 doesn't necessarily imply an anti-tech stance. I don't think it's anti-tech to resist putting computers in toasters, for example. The overuse of tech can be a step backwards and hurt overall technological progress, imho.
Not sure what #1 means.
It's not anti-tech, it's just savvy enough to be skeptical and not to be enthusiastic about tech for tech's sake.
A lot of people just uncritically buy into sales pitches, or are not confident enough to challenge them.
Oh hey HN people they're doing what you said they would, but we forgot you warned us. We're ready for you to be upset now. Clearly you're not so you're dismissive.