There are things parents will not want teens to do that teens will want to do. They will not want to feel pressure to even explain themselves after the fact.

That sounds orthogonal to device management to me. It will happen either way, and not having GPS tracking won't stop parents from catching their kids doing stuff they don't want them to (at least if it's a recurring thing)

People here seem to completely overlook that parents have been managing the whole life of their kid for more than a decade and teenagers are really bad at hiding things in general. Perhaps it's different if the parents are working three jobs and never talk to their kid, but I don't see that as a general case.

The point being made is that if you put tracking in, you are creating an incentive for the teen to get rid of the phone when doing things parents may not approve of. Even if parents find out anyway, the incentive is still there.

Lots of people define themselves by their work. Might be able to indict that. Or that society made that a viable or indeed encouraged option.

I would blame society, yes.

People need to reflect and find themselves instead of relying to their own automaticity to get them through life, stop and smell the flowers a little.

There's plenty of stuff that goes on in large organisations which sits in what I would call "minor illegality" i.e. technically illegal, but the sort of thing people are going to pretend not to notice as long as they can have plausible deniability themselves.

How is it hysteria if there is no conceivable way that this will improve the material conditions of the people? If there is money to be made it will be funneled up, not down.

If you disagree that AI has “no conceivable way” to make people’s lives better, I guess we have much deeper fault lines to cross before we come to an understanding. But regardless of whether you or I are correct, I believe there is a lot of historical precedent thag societies that tend to not completely blanket ban entire industries tend to do better in the long run.

Because rushed out power plants have a high chance of going wrong?

Well yeah. But the profits are privatised while the costs are shared.

I'm surprised they even feel a need to trick you. They have access to the data and more than enough motivation.

Information and investment assymetry means there will always be election-winning rewards for dirty politicking. An actually effective politician, who has morals must balance the two. And they must try to be more skillful in general at politicking than their unscruplous rivals.

They wouldn't dare if they thought revolution was a credible threat. The people have become too tame.

This is what we are not supposed to talk about. The people outnumber the ruling class, and, operating all the means of production, could wield power by simply going on strike, bringing them to heel long before revolution is necessary.

People won't do it today because they are both comfortable and too chained to their current jobs. They are increasingly divided by culture war bullshit that is not at all relevant to the important parts of society, like accountability for leadership.

The theory is that inefficient companies die in the open marketplace, and bad leadership is inefficient.

This fails to account for the sheer scale and encumbancy advantages of massive corporations. It also fails to account that efficiency can be appallingly evil.

Yeah, I feel this often confuses what "efficiency" means from the company's perspective vs wider society's perspective.

A company that streamlines its operations and archives a huge profit margin is clearly efficient from the PoV of its own management and shareholders. However from the PoV of its customers, it's maximally inefficient, because it tries to extract the highest price for the least amount of work done that people are still willing to pay.