You speak as if this is a group of "others" that need controlling, rather than a (temporary) situation anyone can find themselves in. Nor do you recognize the reasons why people end up homeless. You suggest that pushing people to doom scroll all day is a good thing.
Have you considered that being homeless you'd have no money? At risk of theft? That many sell anything worth something to feed themselves or addictions? That you'd get kicked out of places where it's warm with wifi? That you'd have to carry a charger around too? Or that people often refuse to communicate and ignore you? Or that you'd desperately need help and long term support already, which isn't there? Probably struggling with mental health or abuse and trauma?
Tying our lives to a digital devices in order to exist is already dystopian. What you suggest in such a tone and attitude is detached from reality.
You've narrowed the Google example down to them having a link in their index as a search result. People can already sue for keeping links to certain sites/data (pirate sites, personal data etc.) Somewhat closer for comparison, you could already sue Google if they misrepresented the links or content provided by the search, if it differed significantly from the site.
You could already sue the browser for misrepresenting/modifying the info of a given web page, and/or injecting malware. They didn't create the website or content, we all know that.
You can sue any company who is the creator/owner of information. Chatbots are technically creating new information, so whilst a grey area from purposeful human misinformation, the companies are far closer to owner/proprietor of information than the other examples.
Right, but they are also certainly looking to make higher profits overall by avoiding having to pay for large amounts of (confidential and/or private) training data. Most of what they have would never be for sale either.
Because other sports still don't have (from the article) an almost guaranteed chance of brain damage long-term. That's what we can literally see from differences in the brain tissue, not even considering what we can't see and don't know.
It's singled out because it's the single sport that appears to lead to life-altering effects from invisible injuries, rather than an acceptable cost/risk of accidental injury or increased chance of extremely rare events in other sports. They are open for debate just the same if evidence comes to light.
The real question is why you believe your personal experience has any bearing on the facts presented, to the point of farcical argument. It's a shame that anything we enjoy may later turn out to be harmful, but you are arguing the equivalent of: "I smoked all my life and I'm fine", "but red meat gives you cancer too", "why are you targeting smoking when people drink", "people have died choking on air".
Of course. But we’re talking about children. And children playing is vital to any high level sport. Nobody starts playing anything at the age of 18 and goes on to become a top player.
So humans have replaced fighting wild animals with a huge range of other stresses over multiple generations. That has zero bearing on your ability to change the world. Nobody has been directing this. False platitudes like this suit a simplistic view of the world.
I find it silly that we cite examples at all when it's a sample size of one and hasn't stood the test of time. Without the appropriate legal instruments existing within this system to ensure companies follow a specific founders vision when they retire/die, practically everything is bound to the same road. It either rots from the inside or gets taken over by force.
Your original comment on how humans function as a hyper-rationalized cognitive being, is just wrong. Cursory research into neuroscience, biology, psychology, medicine etc. would show how this idea has been proven to be entirely false. We are closer to proving there's no free-will, than to having total control.
Interesting that you ignore everything of substance in the excellent good-faith responses to your comment, especially the actually interesting parts in discussing new information outside your existing worldview. I can't see what picking up on a separate and almost irrelevant point to counter by declaring a non-obvious outcome, without giving any reasoning, achieves.
It's been 100 years since such a view and attitude towards people was popular.
> We are all motes in a complex system. The fact that we can perceive and reason about that system is a cosmic cruelty.
I like how you put this. I feel the same. Effectively too self-aware and intelligent as a species still hooked into the same primitive nervous system as our ancestors and animal cousins.
You speak as if this is a group of "others" that need controlling, rather than a (temporary) situation anyone can find themselves in. Nor do you recognize the reasons why people end up homeless. You suggest that pushing people to doom scroll all day is a good thing.
Have you considered that being homeless you'd have no money? At risk of theft? That many sell anything worth something to feed themselves or addictions? That you'd get kicked out of places where it's warm with wifi? That you'd have to carry a charger around too? Or that people often refuse to communicate and ignore you? Or that you'd desperately need help and long term support already, which isn't there? Probably struggling with mental health or abuse and trauma?
Tying our lives to a digital devices in order to exist is already dystopian. What you suggest in such a tone and attitude is detached from reality.
reply