I said it before. Heavy industry amplifies human will. High technology amplifies the mind. They can amplify virtue or vice. Neither care.
Marx0s On 4/12/17, juan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC) > jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> From: juan <[email protected]> >>> >better technology, better mass surveillance > >> That's a rather limited way to look at things. > > > Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect? > > Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it > is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented right > now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and > towards the military-industrial-government organizations. > > >> Let's consider: Are >> we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, >> 1980? > > Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the > corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, or > wildly increased? > > >> In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the >> Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. >> News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and >> local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, generally, >> found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face >> speaking. > > Political activism has been carried using printed media for a > (long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly > subverted by corporate-government madia. The fourth state is a > branch of government. > > But at least printed media technology could be used against the > government and it didn't allow the government to track people. > Books don't spy on you. The intershit does. > > >> If you simply accept all of the positives of the >> subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus >> solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get >> conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance". > > No I don't think that's how the reckoning works. > > Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of > subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is yes. > Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are > any), the fact of better surveillance remains. > > It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks > counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and that > enriches the government and corporate mafia. > > >> But >> one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, >> are far better able to monitor the actions of governments, > > > Where's the evidence for that claim? > > >> which >> ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the >> governments is very, very valuable. > > It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't. > > >> I have no doubt that, for >> example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their >> actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the >> Vietnam war. > > I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim. > > > And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I >> think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
