Index_Case @ Index_Case @feddit.uk

Posts

0

Comments

24

Joined

2 yr. ago

Also, the implication that not being tech-savvy is a form of willful ignorance is unrealistically dismissive of the different talents and intelligence people possess. Being proficient in the many and various technology's is just one skill set among many, and people value privacy and simplicity without having to jump through hoops to achieve it. Technology should serve to enhance our lives, not add another layer of complexity. The burden should not fall solely on consumers to fend off invasive advertising; it is also the responsibility of companies to respect their users’ desire for a straightforward and unobtrusive experience. (Though I suspect we both agree this bit is more dream than reality...)

Leaving aside the silly thing about buying stuff for show (which may be true of a fraction, but not the vast majority), I disagree.

While becoming 'tech-savvy' might allow people to navigate around the pervasive ads in techn like the Fire Stick, it's unrealistic to expect this level of expertise from the average person. People have a myriad of responsibilities and interests competing for their attention; not everyone has the luxury of dedicating time to become a tech expert just to avoid advertisements. This expectation completely ignores the complexity of our lives and the sheer volume of knowledge required to custom-build solutions like a media PC, or build your own media library. It’s not about being willfully ignorant; it’s about the practical realities of everyday life.

My main question, that I admittedly haven't been arsed to look for an answer to, is; would subscribers still have the same algorithms as non-subscribers controlling what 'content is surfaced' to them? Since it's been kinda optimised for engagement and advertising for sometime... If that makes sense...

Psychedelics, by David Nutt. Probably the most recent and evidence-based on the topic.