You make some astute and fair comments but this one just jumped out at
me as terrifyingly wrong
> "We are under rule of the internet."
Good Lord! No! If we are "under the rule" of anything it is the Rule
of Law. In Britain, unlike USA, we are "subjects of Her Majesty", such
that the Law is mediated through a parliamentary democracy. You have
it slightly different under a republic. Either way, despite general
cynicism we are lucky enough to enjoy governments that serve us, and
long may that last.
The internet is nothing but a tool. It damn well serves us. And it
does so if and only if we ask it to. Your's is precisely the sort of
expressions that gives me concern, please reconsider what you are
saying.
I'm confused because you are the one who said that they were opposed to technological tyranny. Like, somehow how factories were controlling their lives/agency as another commenter puts it. I am the one that is saying that technology is but a tool (which we agree?). I was just extending this nebulous definition of "technology running our lives" to mean "technological tyranny" which I prefaced was ill-defined and took it to its absurd logical limit that we were being "controlled" by other technologies.
> "We are under rule of the internet."
Good Lord! No! If we are "under the rule" of anything it is the Rule of Law. In Britain, unlike USA, we are "subjects of Her Majesty", such that the Law is mediated through a parliamentary democracy. You have it slightly different under a republic. Either way, despite general cynicism we are lucky enough to enjoy governments that serve us, and long may that last.
The internet is nothing but a tool. It damn well serves us. And it does so if and only if we ask it to. Your's is precisely the sort of expressions that gives me concern, please reconsider what you are saying.