I don't think parent comment is suggesting that people aren't allowed to change their mind.
They are pointing out that many people yell "hypocrite!" when someone does change their mind. It's already a phenomenon on social media where people will dig through someone's post history and drag them through the coals, using previous stances on a topic in an attempt to discredit the current stance. Parent is suggesting that this problem would be exacerbated.
Our reactions to stuff like that are defined largely by our cultural expectations, but those are in turn constantly shaped by what is made possible or impossible by technology. Back in the pre-voicemail phone era, for example, people would routinely call someone and expect them to be available for a half-hour chat - you could turn it down, sure, but in many cases it would be considered impolite to do so as a matter of social convention. Then voicemail appeared, and SMS was the final nail in that coffin.
So I think that this problem will exist for a while, but if the tech that enables it persists long enough, it will eventually go on as conventions change to adapt to it.
In my job you could call me a hypocrite all day and it wouldn't matter (though I'd find the uncreative repetition annoying)
In theory, changing your mind should signal that you are capable of thinking about things, and changing your mind based on what you learn.
In practice, most people's opinions are determined by peer pressure. You believe X because the important people around you believe X.
From that perspective, changing your mind means that your loyalty has changed. Previously you tried to be friends with people who believed X, now you are trying to be friends with people who believe Y. No one likes a traitor.
I’m fairly certain the vision pro could do it right now.
/small print: requires read all, send all permissions
I never built it, but it's perfectly possible to do.
The genius idea IMHO was the business model- If you were into certain things you wanted to keep private from most but only wanted to disclose to other people who were into those same things, you could pay a fee, and it would then show you others who were in that "market" (of ideas, drugs, sex, whatever). (It might only ask you to pay it if it found someone nearby who matched. And then it would automatically notify the other person unless you paid an ADDITIONAL fee... Not sure about the latter idea, but it was an idea.)
The only issue is everyone holding their phone up in front of their faces.
That would be a good argument over not permitting a unilateral notification of a match (which, at the very least, I wanted to make very expensive and thus profitable, if it's allowed at all). If it notified both people 100% of the time, and one of you was a possible impostor, you could report them. And from a legal standpoint, showing interest in a market doesn't make you guilty. And, you could possibly also build "cred" in one of these tagged "markets" by getting cred from others who say you're legit, and that information would be revealed at the same time (possibly at your discretion).
> The only issue is everyone holding their phone up in front of their faces.
No, the genius idea is its major issue, just by paying you gain access to private data (people's preferences) without any kind of chain of trust to make sure that someone is actually part of the group ("market" in your terms) for which they want access to.
By paying you could know that someone around you is looking for cocaine, or is willing to sell sexual services, or is looking to match other people from the same gender, or holds a certain political view against an authoritarian government, etc.
And you can be sure government agencies will do the same.
Your service would probably not be able to tie so uniquely to an individual, so there would be ways for people to transfer it.
Or just hire a company to pretend to be you for a while.