really appreciate this. the asymmetry point - masked vs. naked, extraction without consent - feels like something that's going to reshape more markets than people realize.
I'm glad to read this article, Jasmine. I truly appreciate your helping readers achieve reciprocal transparency, in addition to understanding the emotional and cultural landscape that shapes our future.
I can only speak for myself, but there is definitely a new sneaky layer of effort and self-consciousness when posting, trying to ensure my content isn't perceived as AI-generated. Another interesting byproduct that your piece nudged me to reflect on. Thank you.
So much good info packed into one post! I feel there is a tipping point which we are approaching. Our privacy has been eroded over years. Filming someone without consent is going to become dangerous at some point. Even by affiliation or being in the wrong place when someone films, can link your identity to any idea or message which by association can damage us. It’s so backward and people are over it. Our culture is in crisis and most people haven’t even realised how far into it we are. I really hope something changes soon.
Such a good read. Once one player profits from masked extraction, competitors are forced to adopt similar tactics or lose. That’s the race condition: when asymmetry becomes an edge, it stops being a moral choice and becomes a market baseline. Really hoping this little haven on Substack continues to resist the market baseline… and grateful for finding your work!
Once again you’ve managed to articulate perfectly what many of us are feeling and thinking. Another thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. Thank you Jasmine.
I don't mean this as a slight but I imagine writing this one forced you to question your own implication in this growing meta both explicitly and implicitly.
I say that because reading it, I am forced to question my own.
And I think at some level over the last couple decades, we knew where all this was leading to even as we helped lead the way towards it and continued to do it anyway.
So personally, I don't feel I'm in a position to be exactly critical of that which I've helped build, perhaps merely a neutralish observer, if I can.
No, I do not see how I am implicated. I did not build ICE, or Polymarket, or AI. Progress and technology will always move forward, I cannot control that, and you have to engage with certain tech to survive in our capitalist system, but just because we are people living in a technological age does not mean we don't deserve basic human dignity. It is very possible to have had all of this without eroding human rights or privacy or morality.
I wasn't referring to those examples specifically and I'm not sure the last sentence of your reply holds.
As a fellow enabler of big tech/brand biz over the last couple decades I'm not sure I can so cleanly say "I had to do what I did to survive" when there were certain brands I didn't have to work with and certain products I didn't have to make.
On reflection, I think I'm at heart a tech optimist that ran forward knowing the likely negative outcomes while hoping for the best, I'm still that way tbh but choosier with what and who I work with. We grow, we learn but our past remains.
I greatly admire your work and truly did not mean my comment as a slight, it got me thinking critically about myself and I projected those thoughts on to you (in hopes for... some kind of camaraderie I suppose), so I'll leave it at that.
No fiend, I am sorry! I should not have come in so hot. I totally understand what you're saying and I appreciate the response and I agree with your POV. I think about the same thing, but I would not interpret it as being complicit. Even if you're a tech optimist that was hoping for the best while seeing negative outcomes emerge (we all were to some degree). The thing is tech CAN be a great force, there's no reason why it shouldn't be, but the people behind it are just evil in come cases. Progress is not going to stop, opting out isn't a reasonable option, but that doesn't mean holding tech makers morally accountable is off the table either, imo. I compare it to how McKinsey created the "carbon footprint" concept after the BP oil spill. That campaign took the onus off corporations and put it on the people, and we fell for the diversion! Sure, everyone needs to do their part, but the real solution is when the people in power are held accountable, that will be the only way.
really appreciate this. the asymmetry point - masked vs. naked, extraction without consent - feels like something that's going to reshape more markets than people realize.
I'm glad to read this article, Jasmine. I truly appreciate your helping readers achieve reciprocal transparency, in addition to understanding the emotional and cultural landscape that shapes our future.
Way to go!
I can only speak for myself, but there is definitely a new sneaky layer of effort and self-consciousness when posting, trying to ensure my content isn't perceived as AI-generated. Another interesting byproduct that your piece nudged me to reflect on. Thank you.
So much good info packed into one post! I feel there is a tipping point which we are approaching. Our privacy has been eroded over years. Filming someone without consent is going to become dangerous at some point. Even by affiliation or being in the wrong place when someone films, can link your identity to any idea or message which by association can damage us. It’s so backward and people are over it. Our culture is in crisis and most people haven’t even realised how far into it we are. I really hope something changes soon.
Such a good read. Once one player profits from masked extraction, competitors are forced to adopt similar tactics or lose. That’s the race condition: when asymmetry becomes an edge, it stops being a moral choice and becomes a market baseline. Really hoping this little haven on Substack continues to resist the market baseline… and grateful for finding your work!
Incredible
Once again you’ve managed to articulate perfectly what many of us are feeling and thinking. Another thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. Thank you Jasmine.
bravo 👏🏽
Maybe it's time to start wearing a full niqab
I don't mean this as a slight but I imagine writing this one forced you to question your own implication in this growing meta both explicitly and implicitly.
I say that because reading it, I am forced to question my own.
And I think at some level over the last couple decades, we knew where all this was leading to even as we helped lead the way towards it and continued to do it anyway.
So personally, I don't feel I'm in a position to be exactly critical of that which I've helped build, perhaps merely a neutralish observer, if I can.
No, I do not see how I am implicated. I did not build ICE, or Polymarket, or AI. Progress and technology will always move forward, I cannot control that, and you have to engage with certain tech to survive in our capitalist system, but just because we are people living in a technological age does not mean we don't deserve basic human dignity. It is very possible to have had all of this without eroding human rights or privacy or morality.
I wasn't referring to those examples specifically and I'm not sure the last sentence of your reply holds.
As a fellow enabler of big tech/brand biz over the last couple decades I'm not sure I can so cleanly say "I had to do what I did to survive" when there were certain brands I didn't have to work with and certain products I didn't have to make.
On reflection, I think I'm at heart a tech optimist that ran forward knowing the likely negative outcomes while hoping for the best, I'm still that way tbh but choosier with what and who I work with. We grow, we learn but our past remains.
I greatly admire your work and truly did not mean my comment as a slight, it got me thinking critically about myself and I projected those thoughts on to you (in hopes for... some kind of camaraderie I suppose), so I'll leave it at that.
No fiend, I am sorry! I should not have come in so hot. I totally understand what you're saying and I appreciate the response and I agree with your POV. I think about the same thing, but I would not interpret it as being complicit. Even if you're a tech optimist that was hoping for the best while seeing negative outcomes emerge (we all were to some degree). The thing is tech CAN be a great force, there's no reason why it shouldn't be, but the people behind it are just evil in come cases. Progress is not going to stop, opting out isn't a reasonable option, but that doesn't mean holding tech makers morally accountable is off the table either, imo. I compare it to how McKinsey created the "carbon footprint" concept after the BP oil spill. That campaign took the onus off corporations and put it on the people, and we fell for the diversion! Sure, everyone needs to do their part, but the real solution is when the people in power are held accountable, that will be the only way.
No worries, comments can be a minefield.
I'll need to think on it more but the carbon footprint example is very apt in this regard.