I get it, but the underlying problem is: we don't have a society-wide, effective solution to counterbalancing extractive systems. Lacking a reliable label, we have to constantly signal what's on the ingredients list.

Okay, but the comment I reacted to was not that. It was simply (paraphrasing) “I won’t use anything from Zuck/Meta.” If it had been, “Be careful because I have insider information that Zuck/Meta is using Muse Spark to do , and here’s my substantiation for that…” I’d be okay with it. That’s interesting information that moves a conversation forward. But it wasn’t. It was just content-free “I don’t like Zuck” nonsense.

Are not all corporations extractive by nature? Google clearly is.

That's obviously not the issue with that -- you don't see those comments on Google's AI announcements.

Yes you see. They get downvoted and flagged fast because there's a disproportionate amount of current and ex Google employees and stockholders around.

I think your comment could be more helpful--"You borked it" doesn't describe the problem or what you're expecting to be different.

It is faithful.

Maybe "indirect" modern slavery? First we teach a man how to cult, then we show him how to enslave himself?

There are gradations to failure. And "our governments" and "us" also overlap.

I'm probably more on your side than it sounds based on this comment, but I find it frustrating to encounter learned helplessness dressed in profundity.