the simple answer is that none of the good futures we imagine happen by accident. and none of the people with power can be trusted to make better things happen

and now i'm asking myself if medieval peasants looked at the clock in the bell tower and told each other

"in the future, we'll have a weekend off, as they'll be able to see how long and hard we've worked"

we're destroying the open web

we're burning down the closest thing i've ever seen in my life to the library of alexandria

and people are explaining to me how warm it keeps their hands, and maybe, in the future, the ashes will contain the secrets of the universe

"yes your problem is capitalism" yes

arguing about the technology in a vacuum is a debate club tactic, a way of denying the real consequences and moving the focus to imaginary benefits

i am not capable of putting on the pom poms and cheering for supply-side economic arguments that paper over the real world harms

i don't care if tests pass or if it works on your machine, i care how it acts in production

i don't want to be all "you are not immune to propaganda" but a lot of these arguments prey on optimism and hope that technology can lift people up

but when you start to examine the rhetoric, like "what if <imaginary circumstance where the tools are useful>"

or "bad thing? that's a lack of training and dicipline"

it just feels like gun logic in a new outfit