Luigi Mangione.

ITT: lots of generic VPN advice by people who have no experience with the specific problem.

French fries, shorly.

There is nothing inherent about technology that means it must be used for evil.

Sure. In theory. But there are things we know about humans and their weaknesses, and these things are not going to change overnight (except perhaps in the fever dreams of some Marxists, of whom you might be one). Technology of this power did not exist before, and now it does. So technology is indeed the proximate problem.

While this is essentially true, IMO it’s become a bit of a distraction. The immediate problem we face today is technology.

In the 90s, people believed technology (i.e. the internet) would protect liberty against power (or “security”). We thought that removing the barriers to information would put our rulers in a goldfish bowl where we could keep an eye on them. It was a reasonable expectation. But it turns out to be us in the goldfish bowl.

It seems those with power simply have more time and resources available for surveillance. And now the technology is reaching a point where rulers will soon have awesome tools at their disposal, and they’re sure gonna be tempted to use them.

Our problem is technology. Not sure how to put a positive spin on this. Technology itself will provide some solutions. But IMO it’s more important than ever to get involved in politics. In any appropriate way.

Sad if true. I don’t see it being practical to tell people to use different apps depending on the number of interlocutors.

Yes, it was called Pidgin. But things become more complex when you add E2E encryption. The ideal destination is a single agreed protocol, just like one exists for things like telephones, the web, and email.

Seems this is the standard response in animals in times of stress and penury, and humans are no exception. The challenge is to find a way to surmount it. Tough times coming.

But possibly not better than 1855, unironically.

Messengers are the archetypal example of software that has to deal with the network effect. IMO we don’t have the luxury of trying and using lots of FOSS messengers and never picking a winner. At some point there has to be only one left if we want anyone to use it.

The frontrunner candidate is Matrix.

Hard truth: In democracy you get the politicians you deserve. It’s right in the name. If you don’t feel represented, it’s not their fault, it’s yours. The politicians are only there because you and your fellow citizens put them there. Rhetoric of “them and us” is irrelevant because they are you. It’s the “self” in “self-government”.

Sure, this won’t be popular. Lots of excuses will be offered as to why voters are responsible for nothing and this alien blob of “politicians” is to blame for everything. It’s always easier to avoid responsibility, and what simpler a target than politicians? But alas the logic is watertight.

Personally I don’t think the problem is a lack of good people. Some people are good, some bad, most are in between (or rather both). The problem is rather that we are, collectively, dumb.

Be the hope. You are not alone. Be loud. Others feel the same way and feel alone.

But this is clearly all true and important.

Symmetrically alternative recipe that I recently heard (from a French academic): “hopeful pessimism”. The idea being, roughly, that while it’s delusional to be optimistic, hopefulness is by definition subjective and therefore valid. And indeed quite sensible given that we can never know the future and therefore it really might turn out to be better than expected.

Surely that’s the point of OP’s question.

Sure, and that’s why this question is unlikely to produce a useful answer.

that could be because it is an AMAZING post – it covered all the points and no one has anything left to say

Finally, I know why.

All fair points. There are definitely multiple ways of playing with fire.

I saw that article about illiterate college kids too. Worrying.

That’s fair. Although I believe the Jewish minority was the only one that seriously dissented from the prevailing polytheism.

My main point is that secular liberalism is the only political system that has been shown to protect individual freedom and rights - i.e. without the need for a shared supernatural mythology or an iron fist. And this system relies on a shared commitment to evidence, reason, facts.

In this context, to inculcate irrational beliefs in children seems to me to be like playing with fire.

The problem with “faith” is its literal meaning: belief that is not based on evidence.

A society based on faith can only work is everybody has the same faith (think: Ancient Rome, theocracies, communist countries). The only reason modern Western democracies work is precisely that they are not based on faith but rather on evidence, on reason, on truth-seeking. This is the amazing and historically anomalous heritage of the enlightenment and it’s looking more fragile by the day.

Teaching kids fairytales and calling it truth is the reason religion exists. It’s the reason it’s so hard for adults to leave the religions they assimilated as children. And in a free society where we have to find a way to live together, it’s profoundly dangerous.

So my answer is: no.

Interesting insight. Perhaps the underlying issue is privacy. The web is public. In a world where literally everyone is on it (this was not the case in the 90s), having conversations there may just feel a bit icky for many people. You need to protect yourself with pseudonyms, you’re always subconsciously censoring personal information from comments, and so on. Semi-private group chats take a lot of this pressure off. I get that.