So you're using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?

"Google is doing a bad with z"

"z can't be bad, I use y and it doesn't have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions."

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

No. I'm just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Technology is technology. Most famously nuclear technology can be used both for bombs or giving people the basic need that electricity is.

Rockets can be used as weapons or to deliver spacecraft and do science in space.

Biotechnology can be used both to create and to cure diseases.

A technology is just an applied form of human knowledge. Wanting to ban human progress in any way is the true evilness from my point of view.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

No. I'm just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Neither am I. When you're defending whatabputism, it's best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you're arguing with accurately.

False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it's billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.

Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think "banning human progress in any way" is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.

Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.

load more comments (4 replies)