Young people are turning to old-school hobbies to get off their phones

[jfz9580m]

18. I envy them

I am so furious about unwanted connection technology bleeding into my real world spaces with no permission ever sought, I have to be online ranting till someone pays attention from the state here in India and starts: 1) offering an explanation PDQ without that being alarming for me and 2) offer me a path to serious complaint filing, including criminal liability for the tech companies, defense contractors, gamers/hackers/influencers, hospitals and other institutions involved.

You can’t basically pull this bs in a democracy. This ain’t China:

https://qz.com/85609/the-18-2-million-reason-larry-page-would-like-a-regulation-free-playground-in-which-to-experiment

Yesterday Google $GOOGL -1.84% CEO Larry Page said it would be nice if there were some part of the world that were free of regulation so that companies like Google could experiment without fetter. He cited Burning Man, the drug-fueled quasi-anarchist arts festival that Page has been known to attend, as an example of such a place, but in reality it might look more like special economic zones like the one in Honduras.

But why is Page saying this now? On the one hand, there’s the steady drum-beat of regulatory action against Google in Europe, from Germany’s 2009 declaration that Google Books violates copyright law to France’s recent proposal to tax Google in order to finance its own cultural projects.

More recently, and perhaps more ominously, US regulators have vowed to pounce on Google if it violates the terms of its settlement last January of an antitrust suit brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). That ended a 19-month investigation of the company, which means Google spent all of 2012 and much of 2011 worrying whether the FTC was going to fine it, or worse. And in 2012, Google spent a record $18.2 million lobbying Washington according to transparency website OpenSecrets, probably out of concern for the results of that lawsuit. [Update: Some have pointed out that it’s even more likely that Google’s 2012 lobbying binge was due to the company’s successful effort to kill the 2012 Stop Online Piracy Act.]

This guy should stick with hanging out with Epstein..total creep:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/04/google-co-founder-larry-page-can-get-jeffrey-epstein-case-service.html
(That was the last I heard of this creep).

I use marijuana medically from a decent, small local company I trust and supplement it with otc modafinil from a small local pharmacy known to my family for over 20 years, since I could not find any other services of use locally.
That doesn’t mean I signed up for this sleazy, creepfest, stuffed with bullshit “research”.

I post about it on DU to leave an online trail now on the one site I trust outside academic spaces, where I pretend not to exist except as a dull drone. I don’t like mixing.

Physics Stack Exchange and DU are two distinct parts of life and I don’t like combining the two.

But I totally sympathized with these people and this has now hit that critical phase where it needs to be ended, driven out and complaints filed. It is shit for one’s attention and peace of mind, if like me you got dragged into this some 14 years back, while being like me unenthusiastic about communication and personal use tech except rarely.

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/2019/04/pokemon-go-class-action-settles-as-augmented-reality-legal-questions-remain/

Pokémon Go Class Action Settles as Augmented Reality Legal Questions Remain

By JSEL / April 12, 2019
Property owners suing Niantic, the developer of augmented reality gaming sensation Pokémon Go, for trespass and nuisance, have likely settled after years of litigation. They submitted a proposed settlement to the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The class action, a consolidation of numerous claims filed against Niantic in 2016, alleged that the developer induced Pokémon Go gamers to trespass onto homeowners’ properties. The class action settlement would force Niantic to implement stricter internal policies regarding the virtual placement of game characters on private property.

The concept of Pokémon Go is simple—players are able to capture, train, and battle virtual creatures that are “mapped” onto real-world locations, enabling every 90’s kid to live out their dream as a real-life Pokémon trainer. But by fusing the virtual and physical worlds, the game’s designer, Niantic, has raised a slew of legal issues surrounding privacy, intellectual property, and, in this case, trespass.

In one claim, a homeowner, Boon Sheridan, discovered that his house had been designated a Pokémon “gym,” which serves as a landmark where Pokémon players can gather to battle head-to-head with their rivals. As a result, activity around his quiet suburban home spiked exponentially, with Pokémon trainers battling outside his door at all hours of the day and night. One player proudly asserted his status as the gym’s owner, despite the fact that the virtual haunt is located directly on Sheridan’s property.

This raises several unresolved issues surrounding property ownership and trespass. Who owns a virtual space? Is it owned by the game designer, the player who establishes in-game dominion, or the owner of the physical location onto which the virtual space has been mapped? Who should be held responsible for the numerous trespasses that have been committed since the launch of Pokémon Go? Though Niantic has spurred players to break the law in pursuit of Pikachu, the design team itself has never stepped foot onto private property.

Here in India, in the context of women’s safety (with acid attacks and gang rapes not being unheard of), there is a definite legal rationale for a criminal lawsuit.
To be clear, mostly overpopulation aside, life is decent here. And most people are decent enough for routine interactions.

But these are rapacious, extractive industries and legally legitimate enough arguments of all kinds should be used to hold all the technology companies criminally liable to make this so scary and unprofitable it doesn’t become the default setting and instead requires lengthy permission processes where the citizen can refuse altogether. Who cares what flies at a disgusting hell like Stanford? Those people (the Woods Institute, the Ehrliches, Prof Dirzo/MAHB aside) have no class and cannot be considered representative of anyone but the creepiest parts of society.

Our govt had no right to proceed with this. I would not trust these frauds to have any serious understanding of the earth sciences, which I would consider indispensable wrt making free with my spaces, corruption and creepiness aside.

These guys have no understanding of the rhythms of nature, circadian rhythms, how magnetoreception works, the delicate web of life, the intricate nature of mutualism in honest and fair human social contracts and human community and they want to barge in with light and sound pollution and creeps and expect us to back down. To hell with that. That is not ubiquitous computing. That is a blatant land grab.

Chris Ketcham gets it..I like Chris..he is so sane..

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/30/eat-pray-pollute-on-the-needed-death-of-tourism/