Oh that’s interesting. I hadn’t realized the energy sector saw a C-suite pay spike too. Looking around, it seems like they were at or above pay for CEOs elsewhere. Crazy.

We’ve really seen deregulation under all the administrations, eh?

A funny application of the law. Seems a little silly as an answer here.

(Made my day that somebody read the article! I feel like these technical pieces flounder in obscurity.)

I find the different ways places answer this question really interesting. By this, I mean the systems we’ve had in place, the committees and applications and rules, for power providing the whole time.

It is interesting because power is a privately owned monopoly that we regulate to the extreme; so we get all sorts of weird relationships and arrangements. Now we see them all getting stress tested.

I welcome learning where the 2 arguments separate. The more I think on it, the less I suspect there’s a good one.

Note that this is also the argument in favor of giving all the kids malaria. Everyone gets it without intervention, so it must be useful. Sure some people have a really really bad time, but…

I guess my confusion is that some things in this thread are definitely not healthcare (blue eyes), and some definitely are (prevent sickle cell). I’d like the things that are to be available to all.

I was under the impression that we still see UK folks flying across the world to skip queues, personalize medicine, and/or get treatments that haven’t yet moved across the pond? Apologies for my ignorance.

Most (all?) healthcare has been rich people only before it became broadly available. Usually we don’t accept that as a reason to ban it though; what’s so different here?

I mentioned regulation in that sentence and you '…'ed it out… Clearly I’m ok with putting in guard rails, and I see no practical barriers to doing so. Feels a little bad faith to ignore the counter argument that’s right there.

(Severe edit cause I confused the conversation)

Seems fine to me; both show that the slippery slope really isn’t inevitable, no?

Home grown, local eugenics.

Kinda like how picking who to marry is also eugenics.

I mean, we already scan for down syndrome and the like. I don’t think we’re locked onto this slippery slope just from that.

I agree incentives are strong to go down the slope if we make parents pay for this data. But that’s a choice we make: let’s include disease screening as part of baseline healthcare, but make people pay (or otherwise regulate) if they want the additional data to screen for more precise things.

The discussion of what’s disease will (remain) contentious. But I don’t think it has to be slippery if we are careful about the incentives. Society at large seems capable of valuing diversity.

Yes, let’s have this discussion.

Personally, I think screening for disease is a win. Give that service by default. Though we need this happening where somebody can check the data (grift would be very bad in this space).

cloaked Link very interesting! Thanks.

they are less explicit about what information they have/associate to your account? At least, they seem to advertise protection against certain sim swap attacks, not government action.

?? Which are improved by using ChatGPT because?

I think this might partially be a case of different uses of the word ‘burner’ - what they describe is not strong opsec, but it is a way to reduce how much you provide for free (which is often more work for the company to get). By this, I mean not providing so many photos to track your every social visit and movement, not immediately providing life updates (ie, relationships, purchases).

Will meta find out most of this? yes. But I suspect it will be slower, more error prone, and sometimes more costly. Which don’t seem like a bad thing. Is there a good technical term for this? Hardening?

Also, I’ll note that the point of the suggestions is to reduce noise in a persons life, not to go off the grid. I think the blog is trying to be more about curtailing and removing sources of distraction.

As I read it, data must be available according to swiss copyright law, not personal, available using the open web. Further, they retroactively respect opt-out requests.

As you write up the alternatives (especially RSS and adblockers! These can be low barrier to entry), it would be great to link them from this part 1! I feel like the ask and text for part 1 is roughly the right size, but the action feels very big and scary to folks (and giving a reassurance early in the text that you can replace stuff and meet your needs might be helpful).

The topic is important, the timing is good (just in time for some new-years resolutions), and the writing is effective. Thank you for taking on the project.

I had hoped that the first suggestion in part 1 would be more accessible than ‘delete the accounts and create burner accounts’ - we’ve chosen the most effective but biggest ask, and I don’t think this post quite provides the infrastructure required for many people to make the change. FB is used by many folks as social media; the keeping track of friends, events, and family can’t really be done from a burner account (your messages alone will identify you entirely to meta).

And I have a personal pet peeve on this topic that’s triggered by the last section: I believe that mindfulness is a good way to improve internet use, but I think we’ve proven as a society that most people can’t implement this sort of self-reflection and intentionality without more structure. Where’s the tooling to remove dark patterns, automatically ask these questions after an app use, etc. ?