I’m not defending the insurance industry or capitalism for-profit healthcare, but I worry more generally about society normalizing or celebrating violence.l and where that’s moght take us.
society already normalizes and celebrates violence plenty. it just doesn’t tend to normalize it or celebrate it against the people who actually deserve it, pretty much apparently until a couple days ago when everyone sort of collectively seems to have realized that they all agree.
yeah except for basically all of them
Manipulation only really works so far as it’s actually grounded in something. Like, sure, that sounds epic and evil and a machiavillanous type of thing, but it’s usually just easier straight up to actually come up with a compelling argument that “manipulates” people into seeing it from a real angle, than to have to try to do backflips in order to come up with some totally fake argument that isn’t real but also appeals to them specifically and slots into their worldview and directs them where you want them to go. It’s easier just to start with the reality of the situation and your authentic belief and then come up with a package for that which they will find acceptable.
At that point, where you’re actually basing your argument in something, “manipulation” becomes “framing”. We move from a false construction, to just selling a new angle on the reality. Maybe that’s the same thing, to you, but there’s definitely a meaningful difference there.
In this case, the false construction is the idea that data is similar to property, and you need to own your property rather than give it away. Sure, this might push people in the right direction, but they’re also just as likely to find it acceptable to trade their property for a service (as is what these social media companies do, if the metaphor was extended), or to sell their property for a return in a more straight kind of way.
Then you start getting into problematic ideals where people prize their art for its economic returns and hate AI (or stable diffusion) for “stealing” from them. For “stealing” their “intellectual property”, and for stealing potential economic value they could’ve extracted out of that. This, rather than hating it for being a huge investor level scam, that tarnishes the core technology’s viability, for being massive undirected energy drain, and for enabling mass internet botting more than what we already had.
It’s better to deconstruct the idea of intellectual property, while also advocating for user privacy as a kind of right that exists, and actually gives something or does something useful to those which have it, those which have real privacy. Selling it as something good for the individual, to the individualist, selling it as good for society, to the collectivist.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing against someone who believes in the market, and in this sort of meritocratic lassiez-faire intellectual utopian cyberspace ideal, then that’s the real core of the issue you must solve, rather than getting into this privacy/intellectual property debate, where it’s impossible to really change their minds because their core values are incompatible with the idea itself.
I think it’s kind of stupid that we’re defaulting to the idea that a billion dollars as sort of the default “well, that’s too much money, nobody could ever possibly deserve THAT much money!” metric we’re using. Not particularly because there are really any good billionaires, I mostly think that’s not really the case and agree that any claim to the contrary would probably strain credibility.
About the most you could point to is somebody like taylor swift, or any musical performer, or athlete, someone who specifically gains money based almost exclusively on their command of cultural capital and ability as a performer rather than necessarily on extracting the surplus labor value of others, though to a certain extent, you have to have some sort of corporate backing or management company to reach that level, and even if those performers don’t control it, there’s probably some level of loaded complicity going on there. These types would maybe be just above the sorts of people who just run good or more ethical companies, as far as companies can be, on the billionaire morality totem poll.
No, my criticism isn’t so much that billionaires aren’t necessarily evil, because I think it’s mostly true enough that billionaires are all evil for it to be as true a heuristic as a heuristic can be true. I think my ire draws less from that, and more from how this sort of like, meaningless agreement over this particular example doesn’t really necessarily lend itself towards any more in depth analysis. We’ve put the marker too high, the standard too high. A billion dollars is obviously very extreme, you can see that with the comparisons from a million to a billion. What about a million, though? Is that bad, is that a bad standard of evil, if you have a million dollars, does that make you evil? Where’s the cutoff, here? I’m sure plenty of people know someone with a million bucks, you could probably just point at anyone who owns a home in LA.
My point is that instead of some arbitrary cutoff we should probably just be looking at what’s actually going on here in terms of the relationships at work and the constructed hierarchies. If that’s the case then we can probably draw the line less at a billion dollars and more at anyone propping up this stupid bullshit type hierarchy, and specifically those more critical lynchpins which hold it together. Perhaps, like a “not necessarily a billionaire” healthcare CEO. Now that, that would be a good start.