Freedom of Thought Is a Human Right

This thread is a commentary on the following article from Wired UK: Freedom of Thought Is a Human Right

The publications 'sub headline' reads" In 2023, people will remember how to think for themselves—and Big Tech will help. which I find to be chilling and requiring review ...

(Wired UK is a part of the Wired organization... who is owned by Condé Nast, who is owned by Advance Publications, who is owned by the descendants of S.I. Newhouse Sr., who owns a large number of subsidiary companies and is a major shareholder in Reddit.)

As a result of this 'chain of ownership' I would suspect that the 'sub headline' would require amendment to read In 2023, people will remember how to think for themselves—and we will help.

But even if that is hyperbolic, whenever you see the qualifier "Big" in regards to any industry (Big Tech, Big Media, Big [fill in the blank]) you will begin to see that it means "bordering on the governmental" in scope and operation.

In his 2019 Stanford address, Tim Cook warned about the threat to our “freedom to be human” from technology that looks to get inside our heads and rearrange the furniture. His “freedom to be human” is, essentially, our fundamental right to freedom of thought—an absolute right that has been mostly overlooked until now. The importance of Tim Cook’s speech was the recognition that Silicon Valley itself could never have come into existence in the current climate. Technology that undermines freedom of thought ultimately undermines innovation, and that is not good for anyone.

The article practically confesses on behalf of Big Tech of those practices it embarked on during it's peak exploitation of the human condition. Those abuses that were for all intents and purposes censored from debate for the last decade or so, and relegated to the domain of 'tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.'

As a general recognition of the abuses they describe:

From persuasive design to behavioral micro-targeting through emotion recognition technology, predictive policing and neuropolitics, in the past decade the goal of much new and emerging technology has been about curating what Shoshana Zuboff calls “human futures,” exploiting our data to judge and control what we think and feel and ultimately how we behave.

Of course, the author(s) offer assurances that ...

in 2023 we will start to see shifts in both the regulatory landscape and in the direction of tech innovation that reinforce and protect our right to freedom of thought in the digital age.

But it sort of belies their historical participation in the travesty...

In 2016, when Cambridge Analytica was mining the minds of electorates around the world using behavioral microtargeting techniques commonly used in online advertising, the idea of stopping surveillance-based advertising—the data-driven fuel that powers the internet—was unthinkable. This past year, however, we have seen the EU’s Digital Services Act put the brakes on targeted advertising for minors. Even President Biden, in his 2022 State of the Union Address, flagged this as an issue for action. In the US, the attorney general of Washington, DC, is suing Mark Zuckerberg for his role in facilitating Cambridge Analytica’s use of data in the 2016 elections. And in Belgium, the Data Protection Authority made a finding that calls into question the entire structure of real-time bidding for online advertising.

Notice how now that everyone has begun to accept that this kind of thing was actually going on, they are heroically posturing themselves in the heroic light of "now that is all over" imagery of ...

There are already signs of big tech companies thinking carefully about the implications of their work for freedom of thought and taking radical steps. In 2021, Facebook scrapped its research on wearable brain-computer interfaces. In 2022, Microsoft announced that it would phase out public access to controversial emotional recognition technology. Google, following the US Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, scrabbled to address the dangerous ways data can be exploited to expose our opinions on the front line of the culture wars. Apple has announced a new “lockdown mode” in response to the Pegasus scandal that will prevent phone hacking to access the inner lives of human rights defenders around the world.

So even among the growing recognition of the problem, they were STILL doing it.

This is a marketing piece through and through. It has nothing to do with the right of a human to live free from constant and causal data exploitation.

It is meant to convey the idea that we all know better now...

I'll be keen to witness the actual "radical steps" Big tech is sure to take on these incredibly marketable, highly profitable activities ... because I fear they'll just find a new way to hide them...

Seriously, is all that leaded gasolene that we pumped into our cars over the years now coming down to haunt us with insane behavioral patterns of thought?

a reply to: musicismagic

Don't worry, Big Tech will "help" with that too.

In 20230 People will be able to think for themselves again?

To me what that really means is the tech is now so advanced that people will be convinced they are thinking for themselves when they go out and do that stupid thing they never would have even considered before.

a reply to: Maxmars


The Wired Uk article smell quite a lot as PsyOP to me

They try to convince people , but nah....it`s bs .

these are the little bits that lead me down the path to conclude we face our own reformation which we'll need to get back to an enlightened period..

a reply to: surfer_soul

We have always thought for ourselves. The problem here is that we think what we have been programmed to think. We are programmed and conditioned as a result of our society and our desire to be socially relevant and accepted.

The real problem is that too many are no longer capable of "independent" thought, and too few people are capable of independent action.

Thinking is good, doing could be better.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

which is where we where before the reformation with repetitions on the same books/theatre..

it makes me wonder what our Shakespeare will produce when thought and lanqauge is free again..

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Maxmars


The Wired Uk article smell quite a lot as PsyOP to me

They try to convince people , but nah....it`s bs .

People have grown used to the smell off BS. It is the norm. It brings with it a sense of comfort, a security that everything is as it should be, even if we don't like it.

We believe life is okay if we don't like it, because it is much better than it could be. So we accept the BS, because it is better than having to do something about it.

The internet, social media, our corrupt and deceitful leaders, constantly speak of all the things that we know are wrong in our world.

We think about the wrongs. We write about the wrongs. We angst over all the wrongs. We sing about the wrongs. We take sides. We fight. We hate. We make excuses.

But nothing changes, because we never change, and the wrongs of our society will continue to grow, as our souls continue to die.

Sometimes I wonder how Hell supposedly got filled up with so many people.

Oh now I remember. It think it was because of good intentions.

a reply to: Maxmars

I'm all for calling out the mind games, and those playing them, but it's not enough. People need to not only see who is doing it, but how it's being done, and how NOT to be played.

And the last part is the hardest part.

People won't even make clear distinctions between facts and opinions, between truth and beliefs. People don't pay close attention to sources (or lack thereof), and will declare anything reported as fact -- even when there is no possible way to verify or confirm the validity of the claim.

Even when the known and proveable facts contradict someone's words, there are always folks happy to spin it and twist it and contort it into "his/her truth." We used to call that delusional... now it's just "alternative" truths. You feel like a woman? Okay! That's your truth and everyone else needs to just shut up and accept it!

No one can save us from ourselves. "They" are everywhere. If it isn't Big Tech or Big Media or Big Pharma, then it's the two-bit conman on the corner, or the vacuum salesman at your door, or the skank sitting at the bar, and so on and so forth. We cannot stop "them". We need to do better.

a reply to: musicismagic

Was society ever sane?

Leaded gas is actually a good one, they knew the effects of lead back than. Fact is society has always been manipulated and we manipulate each other too although most won't readily admit that.

People like to look back over time and compare to see if it's worse or better, I suspect reality has always been varying levels of crap. It's the individual that often deludes themselves that those with the power would never seek to manipulate.

It's probably easier to see what doesn't influence us than what does. I also consider interaction and the inability to not do it, people would rather get diagnosed with ADD or ADHD than admit society is a bit nuts.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


It`s been unfortunately true that nothing seems to change, for good ,for better .

It`s sad .

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Maxmars

I'm all for calling out the mind games, and those playing them, but it's not enough. People need to not only see who is doing it, but how it's being done, and how NOT to be played.

And the last part is the hardest part.

People won't even make clear distinctions between facts and opinions, between truth and beliefs. People don't pay close attention to sources (or lack thereof), and will declare anything reported as fact -- even when there is no possible way to verify or confirm the validity of the claim.

Even when the known and proveable facts contradict someone's words, there are always folks happy to spin it and twist it and contort it into "his/her truth." We used to call that delusional... now it's just "alternative" truths. You feel like a woman? Okay! That's your truth and everyone else needs to just shut up and accept it!

No one can save us from ourselves. "They" are everywhere. If it isn't Big Tech or Big Media or Big Pharma, then it's the two-bit conman on the corner, or the vacuum salesman at your door, or the skank sitting at the bar, and so on and so forth. We cannot stop "them". We need to do better.

The average person will see an ant in their window sill, and we not think much of it, if they acknowledge it at all. A week later, three or four ants might make them remove the ants and clean up the area. A week later there are five or six. So they pull out the spray. Now they feel they have been proactive and taken care of the problem. Probably feeling good about themselves. Problem solved.

A couple of years go by. They may have seen an ant, every now again. Sometimes in strange places, always in the light. But all is believed to be well.

One night they come home, turn on the light, to find thousands of bugs flying around the house, smacking them in the face. On close inspection, they look like those stupid ants, but these have wings. What the Hell?!

They smack at a group of them that are congregated on one spot of the wall, and their whole hand goes through the wall and the wall just crumbles.

This is how the average person handles a problem. We ignore it until it is uncomfortable. We then just remove it from sight and mind. As long as we don't see it or it does not affect us, all is well. Until one day it is in our face, we can't ignore it, and the house is disintegrating around us.

And yes the ant story actually happened. It happened to me.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

That's an excellent analogy -- thank you!

(Sorry you had to learn the hard way though 🍺)

Your experience also shows that what we think we know, combined with what we do not know (and sometimes cannot know) can get us into trouble. It wasn't unreasonable of you to think you had identified what was a very minor situation -- a couple/few ants occasionally -- if you had no knowledge of these "ants" actually being termites.

If you had mentioned the situation to someone who knew better, or if that someone saw the "ants" for themselves, they might have been able to tell you it wasn't what you thought it was. But we cannot know what we do not.

In such situations, how many people would blow the advice off, still thinking they knew better? How many would do a little more research, just for their own information? (Just thinking out loud here...)

a reply to: musicismagic

I highly doubt that. According to the EPA 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood causes serious health risks, yet OSHA has a much different scale of safety.

During my years as a ballistic technician I was required to have my lead levels checked every six months; monthly when I was pregnant. OSHA requires action when lead levels reach 30 μg/m3, which is removal from the source, LOA and/or chelation.

My lead levels ran 29, which was considered safe. The resulting child has a much higher than normal IQ, so she's either a fluke or we're not getting an accurate picture.

There's certainly a lot of money to be had with OSHA standards-as with any gov branch.

a reply to: RAY1990

People like to look back over time and compare to see if it's worse or better, I suspect reality has always been varying levels of crap. It's the individual that often deludes themselves that those with the power would never seek to manipulate.

i talk to my kids about this topic and to be honest today is not far removed from my childhood in the 70s as the same same # different day, month, decade, year, century..

a reply to: nickyw

Yeah, the difference is that today, or these days you can literally live in your own reality bubble. By interacting through the digital medium, not only is it easy to find yourself in an echo chamber, you will find search engines, social media and bots all tailored around you and what it thinks your preferences are.

For all the information and knowledge available out there, hardly any of it looked at. Except in terms of data and analytics used by the big corporations. With augmented reality, virtual reality and deep fakes only getting better, reality itself is going to take a back seat.

When was the last you went to a social gathering only find a bunch or even most people unable to stop checking their phones? I can see it getting to the point where people won’t even know how to interact with each other except through technology...

And as digital reality can so easily be manipulated and faked in real time, social conditioning methods of the past look look like child’s play.

in europe, canada, australia, new zealand, there is NO freeedom of speeech.
you can go to jail, full on jail, for questioning 'their' 'version' of 'history'

and if you do research, and objectively notice all the inaccuracies in 'their' 'version' of 'history' then you better be in the gold ol' US-A or Jappan, because those are the only first world nations with freeedom of speeech still.

off to jail you go, if you question 'them'

for now, i can laugh and post about 'their' 'history' because we are still are free in the Republik.

a reply to: drongosrevenge

Ouch! Makes me feel a bit freer just being here.

I think the proscriptions against 'dissent' speech have to do with the belief that people become 'infected' with 'bad thoughts.'

It's a typical bias for systems which are run by elites whose self-entitlement includes control over other people, with no accountability or responsibility.

Our politicians are headed there... they like to call it "continuity of governance." But it just means they are trying to make it illegal to refuse their 'entitlement.'

Sort of like taxes, only those are for the banks (their true bosses.)

a reply to: musicismagic

Mind you, harm from particulates from diesel exhaust fumes will be the next asbestosis scandal.