What a stark contrast between his first point (a great point, well articulated) and his second* (the kind of idiotic thing that you’d expect to hear the opinionated drunk say in the pub because of a mediocre science-fiction novel they had read).

It shows how hard it is for the layman to really weigh the consequences of technology and evaluate which opinions are worth their consideration and which are just the disposable ramblings of a moron.

* he introduced his second point by saying “well it’s Peter Thiel’s point,” so not very surprising that it requires you to have a lobotomy to understand it.

I’m glad he brought up the concern regarding a surveillance state. So much of past resistance and revolutionary efforts in part worked because the state couldn’t be everywhere at once. There were “safe” places and “safe” people and the government really couldn’t keep track of it all, but now we do not have that safety. Anyone’s phone or computer can be hacked or tracked. Even their cars. Even just their faces can be followed throughout the country. What could previously have been disguised as a casual knitting circle is now a bunch of people who have to wear masks, unable to bring their phones with them, taking public transit and paying exclusively in cash having to meet in a tech free zone just to ensure they’re not endangering each other. I’m not on the front lines personally chaining myself to things, and I have a lot of respect for people that do that, but even just organizing nowadays can get you on a passive surveillance list where no one has to lift a finger to continuously collect every piece of data on you imaginable. Of course there were always dangers, and there are plenty of things we have access to now, like encrypted chat options, but it is really concerning how tech has made fascism easier. The fact about the Netherlands and France was really interesting. I had no idea and I think it really adds to his point.

Well that ruined my day!