The title alone feels like a modern myth, as if you’re gathering the scattered dread about tech into a single story people can actually look at. It suggests that the future isn’t just happening to us, but is being quietly negotiated in boardrooms while everyone scrolls. The idea of “owning America’s future” wrapped in something as mundane as five companies feels both surreal and far too believable.
The tragedy of humans being traded in for AI is that we do it practically on a voluntary level because we give these companies our commerce and our support like churches. I've met people who think Apple is perfect but then bitch about the cost, the planned obsolescence, and the exclusion of other technology while also burying their heads in the sand about the worker mistreatment from the factories that built their iPhones to the technicians being rotated out of their posts in a revolving door of disposable employment. That's just one company amongst the many grim offenders of this new technology monopolization. It's hard to see a future where using all this technology will not strip out our humanity or ability to prosper unless we want to step on the skulls of others to living in some material world of wealth but no soul.
The old adage "money talks" is certainly appropriate in this situation. Rules are in place to try to control monopolies but Citizens United put an end to that. Having a supreme court that has been stacked for political reasons is at the core of all this. One way we can curtail the endless abuse by billionaires is to change the way the Court is constructed. Selections should not be political or ideology, but based on how the law is interpreted. Let each party have the power to nominate, then when the next opening arises, the other party has a turn then alternate each time there is a vacancy. A 5-4 split is would be the fairest way to control the money. Just doing their job to curtail a rogue president is the other. He is an embarrassment to the country and the world
I have often wondered whether users' digital footprint could not be legally construed as the individual's intellectual property. There may be many instances where I would not mind for my data to be sold and used--but should not I get a cut of that sale? Should not I have the say--not "a say"--in its use and access, like medical information. A national watchdog agency would then be necessary to police the policy, investigate wrongdoing, and ensure that people's data is not being used for nefarious purposes.
The title alone feels like a modern myth, as if you’re gathering the scattered dread about tech into a single story people can actually look at. It suggests that the future isn’t just happening to us, but is being quietly negotiated in boardrooms while everyone scrolls. The idea of “owning America’s future” wrapped in something as mundane as five companies feels both surreal and far too believable.
The tragedy of humans being traded in for AI is that we do it practically on a voluntary level because we give these companies our commerce and our support like churches. I've met people who think Apple is perfect but then bitch about the cost, the planned obsolescence, and the exclusion of other technology while also burying their heads in the sand about the worker mistreatment from the factories that built their iPhones to the technicians being rotated out of their posts in a revolving door of disposable employment. That's just one company amongst the many grim offenders of this new technology monopolization. It's hard to see a future where using all this technology will not strip out our humanity or ability to prosper unless we want to step on the skulls of others to living in some material world of wealth but no soul.
The old adage "money talks" is certainly appropriate in this situation. Rules are in place to try to control monopolies but Citizens United put an end to that. Having a supreme court that has been stacked for political reasons is at the core of all this. One way we can curtail the endless abuse by billionaires is to change the way the Court is constructed. Selections should not be political or ideology, but based on how the law is interpreted. Let each party have the power to nominate, then when the next opening arises, the other party has a turn then alternate each time there is a vacancy. A 5-4 split is would be the fairest way to control the money. Just doing their job to curtail a rogue president is the other. He is an embarrassment to the country and the world
I have often wondered whether users' digital footprint could not be legally construed as the individual's intellectual property. There may be many instances where I would not mind for my data to be sold and used--but should not I get a cut of that sale? Should not I have the say--not "a say"--in its use and access, like medical information. A national watchdog agency would then be necessary to police the policy, investigate wrongdoing, and ensure that people's data is not being used for nefarious purposes.