[0thgen]

"You can control the people of the entire world with computers. Their socialization, their education, their culture, their employment, the very flow of money, all of it is controlled by computers. It's easier than ever and you don't even need to commit violence. The lash is no longer literal but economic."

This feels like it rests on a belief that "nudging" and subliminal messaging are actually effective. The evidence on that stuff is pretty weak, and the evidence we do find has small effect sizes.

The reality is more likely that the "online world" is insanely complex and hard to control. Even with a tech oligopoly, the number of players and interests groups in massive. If companies had the power to completely control the entire world and every aspect of life, they would have (assuming they had the incentive, which I'm sure you believe they do).

[tartoran]

It seems to me the online space is weaponized to for example, control outcomes in elections, close people into ideological bubbles and such.

[0thgen]

When you say "weaponized to", it makes it sound like there's some actor attempting it. Don't ideological bubbles form naturally? (People like to hear what they agree with)

In the case of controlling election outcomes, how is the current situation different from the pre-internet era of tv/radio advertising? Aren't political agents always trying to "control" elections? The core argument I'm making here is: doing so is very difficult