> We live in a hierarchically exploitative society, which contributes to the global collapse of trust.
Indeed. And I think people sometimes don't realize that this trust on society-level is literally the one thing that separates us from being savages. Not our technology, not our military, not the scientific advances, not the democracy, but bonds of trust are what keeps civilization from falling apart.
> I'm sure if it were somehow possible and legal to bundle some kind of mind-control adware into a vaccine that forces you to buy the sponsor's brands, someone would be doing it.
Then it would be detected, someone would get fired, company would pay some huge fines to FDA of WHO or whomever, at best maybe regulations would also be updated, and then everything would be business as usual. Everything, except the trust people just lost - because seeing the corruption everywhere, what possible reason would they have to believe that the new regulations will be effective at preventing such event from happening again?
> ...seeing the corruption everywhere, what possible reason would they have to believe...
This is a fundamental truth that needs to be realized now if there is to be any hope of preventing our slide from a democratic republic into a new form of feudalism. More specifically, a financially stable democratic republic into a feudal society that dissembles, victim-blames, and makes shows of force to hide a useless economy and defaulted obligations.
The trust and respect that being destroyed by both business and government is also what the finance pundits refer to when they talk about "confidence in the market". When many people start observing that "rule of law" and "meeting of the minds" as used by everyday business interactions have become a double-standard that will be enforced in only one direction, the rational conclusion[1] is to respond with the same lack of trust and respect.
I am of the opinion that we already reached this point. A lot of people already deeply mistrust large business, and w4 only have to look at the evening news to see the level of confidence most people have in the economy. We're simply waiting for a spark to ignite the situation. I actually thought the fast-food employee situation[2] was going to be that spark last year, but it seems that problem has been put on hold for the moment.
Meanwhile, we get to deal with the collaborators that work to maintain the current situation by trying to explain away bad behavior like this Lenovo/Superfish stupidity. I hope they like the future they are creating...
[1] why? see the "tit-for-tat" solution to the iterated prisoner's dilemma
This text from [2] was one of the most heart-breaking pieces I read recently. I knew the situation was bad, having a friend who used to work in restaurants - but the article has really driven the point home for me.
> When many people start observing that "rule of law" and "meeting of the minds" as used by everyday business interactions have become a double-standard that will be enforced in only one direction, the rational conclusion[1] is to respond with the same lack of trust and respect.
I've been thinking about the names we use in law and economics and I realized many have become just misleading labels. It's like a variable named m_iNameCount that points to a global array of instances of Thread class. And this leads to the common trick of those "collaborators" you described, the "motte-and-bailey"[0]-like argument. They will defend bad practices by saying, e.g. "it's value-added; surely adding value is good?", where everyone knows that value-added doesn't actually mean adding any real value for your customer.
Indeed. And I think people sometimes don't realize that this trust on society-level is literally the one thing that separates us from being savages. Not our technology, not our military, not the scientific advances, not the democracy, but bonds of trust are what keeps civilization from falling apart.
> I'm sure if it were somehow possible and legal to bundle some kind of mind-control adware into a vaccine that forces you to buy the sponsor's brands, someone would be doing it.
Then it would be detected, someone would get fired, company would pay some huge fines to FDA of WHO or whomever, at best maybe regulations would also be updated, and then everything would be business as usual. Everything, except the trust people just lost - because seeing the corruption everywhere, what possible reason would they have to believe that the new regulations will be effective at preventing such event from happening again?