Hacker News Reader

Comment by matrix87 | Hacker News Reader

If there's one thing I've learned from technology, it's that people put way too much faith in technology

People want to believe that the tech is good enough to build this advertising simulacrum the guy in the video refers to. It's all a fantasy

People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking?

Anyone who talks about tech like it's some kind of deity clearly shouldn't be talking about it, or at least only for the sake of marketing

View on HN

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking?

Power. Cowardice. People saying "it's all fine" because they don't want to live in a world where the only reason they're not in fear or pain is because they kissed the ring. It would not reflect well on them, so they choose to view it differently.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

If the above is possible, why wouldn't it be possible where the stakes and capabilities are orders of magnitude higher?

Plus, the problem isn't to so much to keep anything "secret". Usually it's enough to offer another view point aligned with power, that people can flock to out of cowardice and/or as a token of allegiance.

We all know who Assange is, we know that he was hounded and tortured for calling attention to war crimes. So? Nothing happened to anyone responsible, and at best Assange might be free, one day. Similar for Snowden. So yeah, why wouldn't people just blow whistles all the time, right?

And come to think of it nobody -- that is, none of the power centers, all sorts of "sides" in all sorts of conflicts -- can stand honesty. They may disagree on the lies they want to push instead, but they all agree that the truth is not an option, knowingly or not. No need to plan anything, they can just go by smell and instinct and they'll work together to persecute people with integrity without even realizing they're doing it. "Omniscience" in this context certainly doesn't include being aware of oneself, it's more like a stalker who knows every little detail about the life of their victim, but has no clue that they themselves have a massive problem.

"It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us."

-- Adam Curtis

The problem with Curtis' "weirdos" theory is that it discounts the existence of the weirdos themselves. The weirdos exist and other weirdos know (better than anyone) that other weirdos exist. So they have to deal with a world of weirdos. They need to enter that reality. Which in doing they also do perpetuate. But it's nonsense to imply that it is just imposed on us and could somehow be dispensed with. It has to exist and in existing it has to be dealt with.

The "Team America" theory of dicks, pussies and assholes? I flat out don't buy it. It's not like Assange and Snowden are just such mean fuckers out to harm the poor American public that you have to fight dirty to combat them -- even though you really don't want to. That's laughable. Or that COINTELPRO was just the only way to handle MLK. No, you fight corruption and criminality with integrity. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, the only way to justice and peace, on small and large scales. But everybody just wants to shine light on the their opponents, while believing the stuff they made up about themselves, and made others believe. So there's a lot of half-measures, if even, a lot of lip-service. We want to catch the terrorists who aren't on our payroll, the unpredictable factors, and want to make sure the ones that are don't get caught, the valuable assets. (and it doesn't even matter who says that to whom, this "we" applies to everyone with the means to read this, all nations are equally fucked up in that regard, certainly all the powerful ones). So nothing really gets cleaned up.

Integrity is good, but there's no universal law dictating that it will always prevail no matter what.

That said - I guess - it's not surprising that most of HN (and hope that most non-ignorant people) would agree that a lot of states are way over the optimum non-integrity point.

(For example intelligence and counter-intelligence toward geopolitically important adversarial targets is probably something that makes sense, drone-bombing random groups of people because war-on-something hysteria probably doesn't.)

Integrity reflects cosmos, thus order. The lack, reflects chaos. Congruent to universal patterns and thus laws one could argue that indeed, acting with integrity is a universal law of good.

I’d argue however that better than integrity is what we try to ascribe and describe with the word love. To me it seems when one acts with love then every action is properly constrained, and most importantly acts of discipline; for acts of discipline without love inevitably become acts of abuse. Love is the constraint that trends towards cosmos, integrity, and that which is good.

"everything will be alright" is the most popular conspiracy theory in the world

Technology gives people more plausible excuses to believe what they want to believe. It only has to stand up to the barest scrutiny. "Everything my tribe does is great; everything yours does is horrible. Therefore any evidence against my tribe is fabricated, any evidence against yours is accurate." And so on. This is already happening at scale.

Surely one need no technology to believe in any thing they wish. The only constraint on any mind is the language with which one is constrained by. In that sense the only technological limit would be language itself, which is an interesting place of contemplation in its own right.

I think you think you’re being a realist. But if you have worked at the top end of any big tech company you can see they are both incompetent idiots but also wielders of incredible power… hand in hand with government.

I used to think like you, it was all a conspiracy. But it’s not.

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity.

    The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that
    conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more
    comforting.
    The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the
    grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension
    that are in control.
    The truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control.
    The world is rudderless.
    -- Alan Moore

I think it's both true that the world is rudderless (or maybe there are million different rudders all turning in different directions) and there are also powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do awful things. A real winning combination.

At that point, is your glass half empty, or half full? There are powerful technologies that motivated people can use to do good things.

I think that is an oversimplification with some truth to it, but also not true.

Yes, it would more correct to state that there are various competing albeit unequal centers of power at the top (made of smaller centers of power themselves) and that not even the biggest is absolute.

That makes for an interesting (if you are observer/participant) or frightening (if you are a victim) life.

Would you get behind such a statement ?

Actually, the hairless apes are in control. They’re the ones behind the curtain wildly pulling the levers.

Turns out grownups are just older children. More powerful toys and bigger words, but just as reckless and immature.

We’re still an incredibly primitive species who have gotten _way_ out over our skis, so to speak.

We always err on the side of caution, because that’s a base instinct.

New technology is always existential, until it isn’t.

Awful empires and totalitarian states are hideous, but have a limited shelf life, which unfortunately often lasts many generations.

I think we give ourselves far too much credit when it comes to our ability to control our world, including society.

Power seekers will always try, but will eventually fail, even if it’s their legacy that fails sometime in the future.

That doesn’t help much in the span of a single lifetime, but I’m personally confident that we will slowly evolve to become a sustainable species.

No "one" (individual) is in control, because the human mind is limited. But constellations of individuals with common interests are absolutely in control.

The unilateral dictator is largely a mythical creature. Cabals of powerful individuals with shared ideas are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com