Like the other response to this said, it’s a little more complicated than “the status quo is easier” or “intelligent doesn’t mean smart.” This is a deeply ingrained system that’s existed for a long time, and if you don’t operate within it, you don’t get to work in academia. You won’t get to conduct your research to begin with, much less will you get to the point of publishing it without cooperating with these institutions. There are also powerful regulatory bodies like the APA and AMA who control just about everything in their field. You pretty much have to work for a university, and US universities are of course greedy and corrupt in their own right.

It would be like unseating the DNC, ending the electoral college, and expanding the two party system in America, but on a smaller scale. Plenty of Americans know that these things need to happen, but it’s not something where you can just wake up one day and make the decision to overthrow the system as long as you just try real hard.

In The Handmaid’s Tale, right before Gilead takes over the US, women have to have their husbands sign off on their birth control refills. Then they all get fired from their jobs and all their money in the bank gets transferred to their husbands.

I know it’s a tired cliche to keep bringing up the Handmaid’s Tale, but it just doesn’t seem that far out there anymore. Especially the part where everyone just goes along with the changes and learns to live with them. Margaret Atwood based everything in the book off of real events in wold history. So there’s that.

I can never fully decide whether I think they’re proud of their hypocrisy and cruelty, or whether they’re just too stupid to see it. They’re such shitty people that both are distinct possibilities.

And anyway, wtf is “ideological colonization”? The language these far right crazies keep coming up with keeps getting more and more like that fake legalese that sovereign citizens use to try to sound smart.

Doesn’t make it ok.

Remember when Transmetropolitan made this seem cool

3% on Netflix is really good. Definitely do the english subtitles instead of the dubbing though, it sounds ridiculous.

Seeing technology consistently putting people out of work is enough for people to see it as a problem. You shouldn’t need to be an expert in it to be able to have an opinion when it’s being used to threaten your source of income. Teachers have to do more work and put in more time now because ChatGPT has affected education at every level. Educators already get paid dick to work insane hours of skilled labor, and students have enough on their plates without having to spend extra time in the classroom. It’s especially unfair when every student has to pay for the actions of the few dishonest ones. Pretty ironic how it’s set us back technologically, to the point where we can’t use the tech that’s been created and implemented to make our lives easier. We’re back to sitting at our desks with a pencil and paper for an extra hour a week. There’s already AI “books” being sold to unknowing customers on amazon. How long will it really be until researchers are competing with it? Students won’t be able to recognize the difference between real and fake academic articles. They’ll spread incorrect information after stealing pieces of real studies without the authors’ permission, then mash them together into some bullshit that sounds legitimate. You know there will be AP articles (written by AI) with headlines like “new study says xyz!” and people will just believe that shit.

When the government can do its job and create fail safes like UBI to keep people’s lives/livelihoods from being ruined by AI and other tech, then people might be more open to it. But the lemmy narrative that overtakes every single post about AI, that says the average person is too dumb to be allowed to have an opinion, is not only, well, fucking dumb, but also tone deaf and willfully ignorant.

Especially when this discussion can easily go the other way, by pointing out that tech bros are too dumb to understand the socioeconomic repercussions of AI.

I think more than one party can be at fault at the same time, but it also depends on the situation.

For example. Google maps kept taking rideshare drivers to the wrong entrance of my apartment complex. When I say “wrong,” I mean “nonexistent.” So multiple uber drivers were literally pulling over on the side of a busy street near a freeway on ramp with no bike lane or shoulder. They’d hit their flashers and stop in the middle of the road, blocking the on ramp lane. I’m in the actual parking lot, not tracking them in the app, so I don’t know they’re around the corner. I had two drivers just leave. Did they let me know they were going to cancel and drive away? Fuck no. The actual parking lot and driveway is only a few yards away. If they don’t pass right by it, they can at least see the driveway. I mean, come on. Use your brain.

After the first time this happened, I tried to move the pin in the app, but it just kept sending drivers to the same place. I started texting them after they accepted the ride, but not all would see it. I contacted google and the pickup spot did change - to a back entrance on the opposite side of the complex that has no parking lot or place to stop unless you have a gate opener. For fuck’s sake.

Anyway, it’s both of their faults.

And you’ve written some painfully edited highly professional email to your professor or boss and the response you get back from them is a single sentence, not even a signature.

So glad they made it such a point to teach us to write professional emails in my freshman year of college.

More like 80s babies, since we were actually old enough to remember those first two things

Isn’t it insane how managers (and professors for that matter) tend to act like you’re not a person with a whole life and personality outside your job

Does “low engagement” mean “objectively not doing the job you are paying them to do”? Or does it mean “not going ‘above and beyond,’ aka not working unpaid overtime or doing things outside their job description”? Because only one of these warrants letting someone go.

a de facto guilty verdict. We already saw this with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

We only saw this with Amber Heard. Speaking of simping, Depp had an army of incels and “men’s rights” douchers behind him from the get go. Anyone who had any objective comments about that whole case would get chewed out and brigaded by a bunch of insecure woman beaters standing up for poor little Johnny Depp. The worst was how everyone acted like they knew both of their lives inside and out, and they really believed that they were experts on their situation because they watched livestreamed court proceedings. It is a great example, just in the opposite direction.

Especially fucking Wiley. If you’re a student paying hundreds for a textbook with a “supplemental code” that makes it so you can’t buy it used, then it’s probably by fucking Wiley. Fucking greedy cunts.

I absolutely agree. But I do think it’s interesting how there’s almost never any discussion of drug use and alcoholism among housed people, as though that’s not a social problem in itself. And imagine how much more severe the consequences are of people going to work fucked up, driving their cars, selling drugs in their dorms and getting kicked out of college, raising a family while trashed on xanax, and so on.

But when this happens, it’s an even more individualized matter than it is with homeless people. When we look at homeless folks, we individualize the blame and socialize the consequences (it’s the homeless person’s fault they’re homeless, but that’s fucking up our city etc). Somehow, we never consider the social repercussions of housed people with addictions, especially if they have an addiction to alcohol. Alcoholism can get pretty far in an “average” person’s life before anyone really steps in and sees it as a serious problem. Same with prescribed drugs, because they have some psychiatrists signature on them. Millions of people drink when they get home from work. But if we see a homebum with a 40, we first make a snap diagnosis, then widen our judgement to everyone whose ever been evicted or had to sleep in their car.

All I’m saying is that half the problem is ingrained social stigma, when they’re really not much different from the rest of us.

Thank you for this, it’s very interesting to hear more details about how this was handled over there. In the US we tend to either have a very idealistic view (liberals) or very negative view (conservative) of Euro and Nordic countries’ social policies. No country is perfect, but I guess if the outcome has worked well then we can’t fault it even if the reason was to maintain their image by hiding poverty.

Regardless, it is an important study to disspell stigmas that have existed since the beginning of private property.

But it is still important when it comes to housing. This argument of homeless people being untrustworthy with money has undoubtedly already worked it’s way into that debate. If people won’t trust them with money, why would they trust them with an apartment? Canada and the US don’t see them as “worthy” or responsible enough to be given anything, not even food. Look at what an insane process it is just to apply for food stamps in the US, and that applies to low income folks as well as homeless people. Everyone is considered a criminal until they can prove otherwise, and they’re rarely given that chance

Not that I think academic research will make much of an impact. Research from the social sciences consistently debunks all kinds of common, harmful beliefs, and yet is still often ignored by policy makers and average people. It’s depressing as fuck that there are academic researchers spending years on studies like this, convincing people to fund them, getting paid dick by their universities, and still a bunch of assholes who have never set foot on a college campus get to just cut it down by saying “oh, well, that’s what I heard.” And then move on with their lives while homeless people continue to suffer for no reason. This is an example of the far reaching impacts of devaluing education I guess.

It’s hard to believe anyone missed this:

As Pole’s computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.

This article is from 2012

I wouldn’t underestimate it. I also wouldn’t buy into the “I have nothing to hide” narrative. It’s not about hiding or not hiding. The fallout from the Dobbs decision is a great example of why, if you aren’t concerned with privacy now, then you will be in the future. All of a sudden, the right of 51% of the population to make decisions about their own bodies was suddenly gone, and handed over to state governments. The day before that decision, people needing abortions and the doctors who provide them had “nothing to hide.” The day after? They’re suddenly criminals. Their social media can be monitored. Their online and in-person purchases. Where they travel and why. Their medical records. And maybe worst of all, their fellow Americans are offered prize money if they turn someone in so that they can be charged in criminal court.

Or what about Florida’s “risk prediction” software that supposedly can predict which “at-risk” (aka non-white) kids will become criminals? Maybe I’m wrong for finding that unsettling. This is from 2015

https://theweek.com/articles/495147/floridas-minority-report-crime-prediction-software

What about social credit scores? Which we already have, we just don’t get to see them (LexisNexis “risk solution” software). But sooner rather than later, every word and action will be recorded and held against us in every aspect of our lives, rather than just when applying for jobs and mortgages. And anti-discrimination laws don’t do shit. They always find a work around. Although with the current supreme court I’m sure all forms of discrimination will be perfectly legal soon enough.

Btw private browsing doesn’t prevent tracking. It just doesn’t store anything in the broswer history.

This does not come across the way you think it does.

Sounds like we need to get the sociologists and cultural anthropologists on it. Can’t decide whether economists should be involved. Probably not.