361–370 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chat rooms webs were sold by millions in the dotcom era. And everybody used them. Nowdays everybody see them as useless.
They evolved into Instagram(8 billion), WhatsApp(20 billion) and FB(trillion)
Chats did not evolve to social media.
Facebook is a descendant of hotornot not icq or chats.
Ws was seen as free sms.
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
I don't understand this argument. Speaking as a kid who grew up middle-class as an 80's teen obsessed with (the then still new) computers, a non-rich person has access to more salient power today than ever in history, and largely for no or low cost. There are free AI's available that can diagnose illnesses for people in remote areas, non-Western nations, etc. and which can translate (and/or summarize) anything to any…
Now, ask yourself, what happens when workers lose the only leverage they have against the owner class: their labor? A capitalist economy can only function if workers are able to sell their labor for wages to the owner class, creating a sort of equilibrium between capital and work.
Once AI is able to replace a significant part of workers, 99% of humans on Earth become redundant in the eyes of the owner class, and even a threat to their future prosperity. And they own everything, the police and army included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Go repeat that to the nearest homeless guy. Wealth inequality is rising rapidly, and around a billion people on this planet still can't eat as well as they should.
How do you explain this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of those did the Internet benefit?
Would you rather be a 22 year old starting in life in 2025 or 1995? Unless you pick one of the few countries that underwent a drastic change of regime in that time, the answer’s pretty clear to me.
Also, knocking that almost decade off my birthday would assure that I spent most of my adult life with the luxury of thinking that energy didn't have negative externalities that were being forced on later generations.
We had Chomsky-esq "any major world power is kind of fascist if you think about it" instead of literal talk by politicians about putting people in camps if they don't like your diet or country of origin.
TV was pretty bad I guess but music was great and I read more back then.
There was a lot of huffing and puffing about gang violence. I grew up on the street the local gang named themselves after and it only marginally touched my life at all.
Housing was dirt cheap, food was dirt cheap, gas was dirt cheap. There was undeveloped land everywhere around the city I live in and it gave a general sense of potential.
What exactly was so bad about the 90's?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I found the comment to be quite sober and realistic. Other than usage of "they want" as a monolith group it's pretty accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I have agency and I'm very happy with my lot. I'm not "blaming" anybody for anything. But unlike you I am not in a naive infantile delusion about what the ruling class are and want and work toward.
This has to be a joke given your post. Ctr + F "they"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what evidence? The last few times this happened the whole world benefitted.
Based on extensive academic research on trickle-down economics, in particular looking into the evolution of real wages of different sectors of population, since 1980s. See the work of recent Nobel prize laureates in economics. Many argue for redistribution and investment back to the society.
(oh, and keep on eye on all those 'internet scanners', 'script kiddies' using AWS for scans/attacks, honey pot time?).