Present pro-Big Tech facts and narratives here

I have invited supporters of Big Tech or critics of to present their best arguments in the comments field below, by for example linking to papers they have published on their own websites, so that readers can have access to all arguments for and against Big Tech and its surveillance infrastructure. That will make it possible for people to freely make up their own minds about whether nonviolent sabotage of Big Tech surveillance is justified or not.

In this featured section of the website we only discuss the validity or truthfulness of the general ethical principles, basic political philosophies, scientific theories and ontological worldviews that are the foundation of Big Tech’s justification of their continental or global (monitoring) power.

In the next featured section of this website I’ve also invited critics to present arguments against the militant strategies and tactics which (DSI) defends temporarily in an undogmatic manner. But that featured section about methods presupposes that DSI is more or less right when rejecting the moral, political, scientific and worldview arguments that are the general foundation(s) of Big Tech and its monitoring systems.

Critics who have a master’s degree or PhD can use the comments field below to present the reasons why they think that Big Tech has a better general foundation than the basic principles that DSI rests on.

DSI only accepts comments written in an academic manner. For all other non-academic feedback please post it on Minds, Gab or Parler if it’s relevant in a fact-based discussion about Big Tech surveillance. The manner or form in which you present your feedback, whether you prefer to be polite or very rude, doesn’t matter since I will in any case only focus on the content of what you are saying: empathy and ethical validity, facts and logic, in harmony with 1) the moral philosophy of Levinas for example, and 2) standard scientific methods/practices, cf Cavendish, Popper, Polanyi, Sokal, Taleb, Tetlock, Keith Stanovich, Michael Shermer, John Horgan, Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder.

Excuse the namedropping, just mention the above scholars to show where I’m coming from. And please excuse the fact that I suck at math, have mediocre IQ, and don’t know very much at all. Do mock my hypocrisy though, cf 1) “Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite” by Robert Kurzban, 2) “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)” written by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, and 3) “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty” by Dan Ariely.

I’m not on any Big Tech platforms. If you for some reason don’t see that your comments are published on the DSI website, please contact me on: : @andreaswinsnes : @andreaswinsnes : @winsnesandreas

Here’s the dialogue policy of DSI: one should fight to defend ethics and truth, but one should not fight in the scholarly arena when trying to gradually determine what is moral and true.

To prove that DSI is acting in good faith when claiming that we’ll respect the better arguments (Habermas) in a free and open scholarly arena, I’ll start by playing the “devil’s advocate” in favor of Big Tech’s monitoring power.

Of course, if you really want to understand a perspective you should read the books written by the most educated supporters of that perspective, so to understand the general progressive foundation of Big Tech you should enjoy these very interesting and challenging books by the so-called “neo-optimists”: Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, Hans Rosling’s Factfulness, Michael Shermer’s The Moral Arc, and Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape. (For criticism of this read John Gray and Nassim Taleb.)

A defense of Big Tech

The continental and/or global monitoring power of American West Coast Big Tech is a force for good if you accept the following basic assumptions:

1) progressive elites are very generally so good-natured and full of empathy and/or rational wisdom that this elite is basically not corrupted by power despite the occasional “bad apple”.

2) progressives have found a recipe of rights that will very gradually lead to a “protopia”, which is the closest human beings can realistically get to global peace and harmony, if enough supporters of progress just keep fighting for these rights: free markets, rule of law, anti-racism, individualism, universal human rights, etc.

3) up to 90-99 % of global humanity have (very deep down) the (latent) ability and interest to eventually live freely in harmony with the recipe of rights mentioned in 2), if one uses top-down education and top-down “propaganda” (politically correct entertainment) to very gradually nudge them in the right direction, so that progress is basically secured (in accordance with the saying: two steps forward, one step back), if you keep fighting the good fight.

4) the closer humanity gets to global “protopia” the more knowledge will people acquire, thereby making it possible – through science, AI, elite wisdom, decentralized info centers, and the “wisdom of crowds” – to attain the very general overview required for maintaining peace, love and harmony on a global and inter-planetary level.

If you accept the above assumptions it follows logically that you (personally) have, very basically, little to fear when progressive Big Tech creates an almost omnipresent monitoring system that eradicates all crime, all terrorism, all domestic violence, and all corruption.

If you have seen the horror caused by serial killers who torture their victims for months or years, how can you be opposed to an omnipresent AI that will automatically stop all violence?

When seeing the abuse and exploitation caused by sick people how can you reject the idea that one should use genetic engineering and brain implants to gradually eradicate all neurologically based mental problems (including boredom)?

If you visit a slaughterhouse in the (globalized) meat industry, how can you argue that bio-engineers are morally wrong, all in all, when using (dual-use) tech of 4IR (fourth industrial revolution) to create artificial meat which (one day) will taste absolutely fantastic?

And what if it turns out one day that only 4IR tech can save humanity from planetary ecological destruction? Will we not regret it then if we now decide to abandon 4IR tech in the West?

Finally, I will let NSA speak for itself:

I Work for N.S.A. We Cannot Afford to Lose the Digital Revolution.

For more arguments against sabotaging Big Tech read:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s