zlacker

>>neelc+(OP)
The problem here is that most people don't give a crap. I was explaining this situation to my girlfriend last night over a drink. She's a high level academic with a strong mathematical and logical background in a different field but she didn't really formulate an opinion on it past "if my stuff keeps working, why is it a problem?". Which is fair, because it's a hypothetical risk, but the side effects are a net negative and the open nature of the web is at risk.

As always people see the happy path down the middle of the forest, not the creatures waiting to leap out and eat them two steps down the line.

>>baz00+8t
> The problem here is that most people don't give a crap

Most people are not qualified to give a crap.

We don't adopt medicines on the basis of "most people's" opinion, we don't adopt anything technological with potentially harmful impact on the basis of the opinion of large uninformed masses.

Thats why we have regulators and other institutions that should be informed and give an informed crap. On a ongoing basis and not only a result of popular outrage.

Which brings us to regulatory capture and said institutions actually failing their mandate to serve the interests of the people that fund them.

But now we have something that most people should give a crap about. This is not technical, it goes to the foundation of democracy and governance. Otherwise we might as well stop voting and accept we live in a corporate oligarchy.

>>nologi+sU
>Thats why we have regulators and other institutions that should be informed and give an informed crap

Yes, but unlike say construction, the environment, or medicine, when it comes to IT, most of our gov representatives in charge of regulations are horribly out of touch with what's happening in tech world and how fast things are changing.

Just look st the senate hearings of Zuckerberg and the TikTok CEO, what questions they were getting: "can TikTok access my Wi-Fi?". I rest my case.

They have no clue how the whole "internet-thingamajigs" work, nor do they care to listen to people who actually do know, because they can also be easily lobbied by big-tech to look the other way, especially since for the US-government, having US companies dominate everything IT related on a global scale is a national-security asset rather than a curse, which could be say if Chinese companies were to take over instead.

>>Firmwa+T91
> most of our gov representatives in charge of regulations are horribly out of touch

why should that be accepted though? There are plenty of experts to consult and (like the very salaries of politicians) none of that expense is out of their own pockets.

> a national-security asset rather than a curse

when every excuse fails national security is invoked. Somehow advertisers are now a critical element in keeping the free world free.