The problem here comes from the model of telemetry. Such innovations having to come always with the centralization of the data on the internet to Apple or other data hoarder potential unknown(or cell provider, IDK). Why is it that such a possibly civilian useful tool always has to come with an obscure layer of centralization (information back to the cloud). If there could be transparent local data protected space in such body appendage that the populations have consented to wear all day long, and keep looking at also all day long.. perhaps that would be something good. I think the problem is perhaps the constant tethering that old computers did not have to have to function. Even now a computer can work without always having to phone home.. Could it be the app store model?
But one has to find that this technology can be of use other than the usual world crap industry. I am tried of using the word military.....
Tech positivity took a wrong turn when 'internet deniers' all of a sudden flocked to myspace and it got 100x worse when facebook took the wind out of the sails of myspace..
was myspace decentralized? Facebook did become a black hole of internet user attention budget at population scale. Where the word "social" became a thing (abuse of social instincts). I am not sure to understand your references. Although I take note.
No, myspace was a first attempt of groupthink media.
It somewhat fialed, and suffered under its own weight and automation of friend collecting.
Then facebook happened. And music/film industry took over myspace for marketing purposes.
I was on myspace, and saw how people are being used. I refused to get a facebook account. AND THAT was my first experience of getting cancelled by 'friends'.
I also see facebook steroids in all the crypto coinery. Its way way worse then facebook.
I also resisted SubStack, Greenwald almost convinced me back then, but it took years until i joined. And im not convinced that this is a solution either. People are NOT accountants or gardeners in a walled garden.
This is what software devs still dont get.
I digress, but i think itcis essential to explain in this context.
I think that technology like this has the possibility to greatly increase the effectiveness of propaganda/narrative control. Imagine for example that NATO's StratCom, in cooperation with a select social media website (let's say X) and also together with Apple, gains access to data of your microexpression when reading/encountering certain posts. That means that, presumably, they would know how you feel when reading said posts. From this they could use said data to automatically fine tune the website's algorithm, in order to serve you content that provokes the desired emotional reaction.
As such, if StratCom wants you to believe Narrative A, B or C (since they have different narratives for different target groups), they could now–hypothetically speaking–have data beforehand of which narrative would produce the optimal emotional reaction. And if the selected narrative *does not* produce the desired reaction, the algorithm could be adjusted in real time.
Lobotomise all the iPhones.
WITH A HAMMER
The problem here comes from the model of telemetry. Such innovations having to come always with the centralization of the data on the internet to Apple or other data hoarder potential unknown(or cell provider, IDK). Why is it that such a possibly civilian useful tool always has to come with an obscure layer of centralization (information back to the cloud). If there could be transparent local data protected space in such body appendage that the populations have consented to wear all day long, and keep looking at also all day long.. perhaps that would be something good. I think the problem is perhaps the constant tethering that old computers did not have to have to function. Even now a computer can work without always having to phone home.. Could it be the app store model?
But one has to find that this technology can be of use other than the usual world crap industry. I am tried of using the word military.....
Tech positivity took a wrong turn when 'internet deniers' all of a sudden flocked to myspace and it got 100x worse when facebook took the wind out of the sails of myspace..
There was a 'suicidemachine.com'
But nobody used it hard enough to un-exist their accounts.
was myspace decentralized? Facebook did become a black hole of internet user attention budget at population scale. Where the word "social" became a thing (abuse of social instincts). I am not sure to understand your references. Although I take note.
No, myspace was a first attempt of groupthink media.
It somewhat fialed, and suffered under its own weight and automation of friend collecting.
Then facebook happened. And music/film industry took over myspace for marketing purposes.
I was on myspace, and saw how people are being used. I refused to get a facebook account. AND THAT was my first experience of getting cancelled by 'friends'.
I also see facebook steroids in all the crypto coinery. Its way way worse then facebook.
I also resisted SubStack, Greenwald almost convinced me back then, but it took years until i joined. And im not convinced that this is a solution either. People are NOT accountants or gardeners in a walled garden.
This is what software devs still dont get.
I digress, but i think itcis essential to explain in this context.
After years of molding our mind, Apple whats to read it?
For me the the fundamental question is why we comply, why we still buy
Internet of Bodies / Internet of Behaviors
I think that technology like this has the possibility to greatly increase the effectiveness of propaganda/narrative control. Imagine for example that NATO's StratCom, in cooperation with a select social media website (let's say X) and also together with Apple, gains access to data of your microexpression when reading/encountering certain posts. That means that, presumably, they would know how you feel when reading said posts. From this they could use said data to automatically fine tune the website's algorithm, in order to serve you content that provokes the desired emotional reaction.
As such, if StratCom wants you to believe Narrative A, B or C (since they have different narratives for different target groups), they could now–hypothetically speaking–have data beforehand of which narrative would produce the optimal emotional reaction. And if the selected narrative *does not* produce the desired reaction, the algorithm could be adjusted in real time.