In summary, @ianbicking suggested that the way @PatMc has broadly framed this topic has refreshingly done away with the ascetic prerequisites of highly technical proposed solutions. The problems have been identified as “Inhumane tech, driven by profit or attention feedback cycles…” that are “accepting and inclusive” “commercially-driven activity.” In other words, a seductive “Pinocchio Pleasure Island” whose damages to society are creating “an Electronic Tower of Babel” made indiscriminately profitable by each non-substantive social utterance of the masses on the internet. Ultimately we asked, “Is there a healthier way to give people what they want?”
@aschrijver has observed a need to apply “political pressure, both at the government level and in the top of big tech companies,” and that “we need to ensure that the right tech is built,” being mindful that “Quick one-off solutions do not exist.” This CHT forum’s scattered proposed solutions has inspired @anon51879794 to ratchet up his awareness campaign from a symbolic one, to a more tacit video type presentation. And similar to my sociocybernetic proposed solution, @borja wrote a blog about laws on the internet and AI powered robotics. In the process, Borja identified the most critical reason why this thread is so successful. “One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned with design, is that you can’t design anything properly until you see the problem.” Is it the government’s responsibility to provide that healthier alternative to the problem, or is it the responsibility of the Tech Giants?
We, here in this thread, merely be being here and voicing our opinions, have taken the initiative to say that neither of these two first options is the correct choice. The cold and hard reality teaches us that the responsibility is ours and ours alone. I suggest that we have that responsibility because we see a problem that others do not see or fully comprehend. We should not expect others to assist us with resolving a problem they do not see or understand, whether by lack of motivation or the lack of uniform tools enabling those subjective realizations to be resolved.
As Aschrijver said, “we’ll find and implement numerous small, incremental solutions and fixes all along the four strategic pillars [of the CHT], towards the vision of ‘Aligning technology to humanity’s best interests’.” But whom or what are we aligning? For example, while Bitcoin may be better understood by the Millennials, the elder generation see no value to Bitcoin, let alone the technical details of its underlying block chain technology. A chemical response occurs in the elder generation’s brains when they come in contact with greenbacks because they’ve known and interacted with greenbacks their entire life. They trust the government’s currency which is collaterally backed only by the government’s own withering GDP and decorum. Likewise, Facebook asks us to trust it even though the way it has been loosely governed may be responsible, at least in part, for the election of Donald Trump to the White House.
I suggest that those who understand the problems we’ve identified in this thread all belong to the same union whose objectives are “the production of a theoretical framework as well as information technology tools for responding to the basic challenges individuals, couples, families, groups, companies, organizations, countries, international affairs are facing today.” Cheers to all who have contributed so far.