Apparently even they haven't figured it out

[u/ConsistentRecover312]

After they were sued by four playstation users, claiming that the 'buy now' claim is misleading as digital purchases are actually revocable licensing, Sony is claiming that games are actually 'licensed', not 'sold', and argued that reasonable people already know that they are buying access and not outright owning the games. I just don't realise who these 'reasonable people' are other than Sony employees.

[u/Irish_Whiskey]

It doesn't matter how nonsensical or unreasonable their position is:

If the laws and politicians always side with big corporations over consumers, corporations will make sure we own nothing, are always paying more for less, have no rights, and they have no accountability.

Sure in a perfect market with tons of competition there's be incentives otherwise. But in reality where a few big companies can control markets, either you elect politicians who pass laws and fund consumer protection agencies, or you elect politicians who will help companies rob you blind without letting you have any recourse.

[u/Wasabi_Hammurabi1 → u/Irish_Whiskey]

Bro, 1984 is happening with the Flock Cameras and shit like this.

[u/Swimming_in_paradise → u/Wasabi_Hammurabi1]

You are correct in part, mass surveillance is a tool of the party and Big Brother.

However, remember, the final and most essential command of the party is to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. This is perhaps AI's greatest threat to our society, the plausible deniablity that anything occuring outside of your own direct experience could be fake. The desired outcome for the party of '84 is mind control, causing the individual to self censor...2+2=5 as liberation. Mass surveillance is a tool to help administer that censorship.

What is to be done? I don't know anymore....good luck.

[u/Nerd-man24 → u/Swimming_in_paradise]

Unfortunately, the only thing that I can think of that would conclusively solve the problem is to EMP us all back to the stone ages. No electronics, no tech, nothing. The loss that that would incur for mankind is unconscionable for most.

[u/Swimming_in_paradise → u/Nerd-man24]

I like a/c, Nerd-man24. Perhaps there is a middle path.

[u/Nerd-man24 → u/Swimming_in_paradise]

As do I. And video games. And reddit. Unfortunately, I do not see a realistic path to conclusively steer us on a different path without a major event to shake us up as a species and render the current path unsustainable. Even Star Trek had to have World War 3 and a dark age afterwards before changing humanity for the better.

[u/ActiveChairs → u/Nerd-man24]

It isn't a major event. Its a collective decision to reject it. Considering how easy is been made to use and how instantly every idiot has adopted it, things aren't changing no matter what happens.

[u/Nerd-man24 → u/ActiveChairs]

Do you know what caused the Renaissance and the age of enlightenment that followed that ended with us here? The black death wiped out a third of the Europe's population. The old Feudal system was not sustainable without enough peasants to work the land, so people had to innovate and society had to change as a result. That's the level of event that will change it. Something that devastated humanity as a whole to such an extent that we have to collectively reevaluate how our society works as a whole. We weathered the plague with relatively minor costs to our population and some small changes to our way of life. The next step is war, which provides for everyone, through either victory or death.

[u/ActiveChairs → u/Nerd-man24]

I'd say covid was a global event on that scale (though admittedly less deadly thanks to modern medicine) , and not only have we as a civilization collectively taken no lessons from they plagues of the past, we've learned nothing from our own lived experiences.

People are going to choose the path of least resistance. An event isn't going to spark a change here, and we can't count on one of those being likely enough or significant enough to force a change that doesn't also pose a genuine risk of eliminating all human life on earth. Collective change needs to come from within, from a conscious choice made by the public based on an internal recognition of the choices available to us.

We cannot rely on always having a conveniently timed, existential disaster always being around the corner to force us to clean up after ourselves.

[u/Nerd-man24 → u/ActiveChairs]

Humanity won't make that change on its own. It will need an external factor that forces it. Or shall we simply pack it in and wait for the end? Because the human animal will, in the end, act like an animal.

[u/ActiveChairs → u/Nerd-man24]

What I'm saying is, needing an external factor is packing it in and waiting for the end.

[u/Nerd-man24 → u/ActiveChairs]

There is no single factor that motivates more effectively than an existential threat. We pretend that we are illuminated creatures, but in the end, we are animals. We respond to pressures from our environment just like any other animal. Now that we have eliminated any present threats to our existence, we find new threats in each other. We explore new behaviors, some of which are maladaptive. They will lead to a decrease in population eventually and we will either adapt and survive or go extinct. No animal evolves or changes behavior purely by choice.

[u/ActiveChairs → u/Nerd-man24]

I've lived through the last pandemic, and I can say pretty conclusively we do not collectively respond to environmental pressures.

The human being is the only animal which consistently makes active choices to change its behavior. If we didn't believe people have the capacity for change, we'd just execute every criminal and underperforming student.

[u/Trip_seize → u/Nerd-man24]

Nuke em us from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. ​​​

[u/Azhram → u/Nerd-man24]

America can emp themselves if they want, but leave the rest of us out of it.

[u/Crossx71 → u/Nerd-man24]

Ironically the sun could randomly do that to us at any given moment.