Post #4211851
2026-07-15 19:40 UTC
Majors's article is such a hot mess of non sequiturs that it's difficult to even know where to begin. I'll just highlight one major point. As an example for "AI is just technology", she cites, of all things, *Facebook for Myanmar*: That we "discover the risks before we know how to govern them". (Really! Look it up!) After reading this a dozen times, the only conclusion I can draw from this, is that Majors actually believes that Facebook is "just technology", that somehow its fueling a genocide was a necessary step (towards what?) and that we (or somebody) has learned how to regulate Facebook this will not happen again. Like. Seriously?
https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/
Replies (1)
-
@sperbsen@discuss.systems 2026-07-15 19:41
As to Fowler's *so useful*, lots of things are *useful*, and @tante@tldr.nettime.org has dealt with that aspect of AI. Let me connect this with Majors's posting: If we follow her argument that we all need to "engage with AI", we all should "engage" with lots of useful things. Yet, as a society we've chosen to "engage" with many things only in highly controlled environments, or not at all. Think of nuclear power and life sciences. https://tante.cc/2026/07/15/useful-is-not-sufficient/