Everybody privately shit-talks everybody. The phone always listens to it and records it. A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts. Everybody in the world suddenly gets a thousand shit-talking texts from their family, friends and associates. Society dissolves.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Oooh, edgy. Few problems:

    List of logical fallacies

    1. Hasty Generalization

    “Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Assumes a universal truth based on limited or anecdotal experience. Not everyone engages in this behavior

    1. False Premise

    “The phone always listens to it and records it.” This is factually untrue for most users and makes the argument invalid from the start. The conclusion based on this premise (a hack turning that into texts) relies on a false understanding of technology.

    1. Slippery Slope (Implied)

    “A viral hack that turns all this shit-talking into texts.”

    Implied assumption: this will definitely go viral and cause massive disruption. It assumes a cascade of dramatic consequences without evidence.

    1. Appeal to Cynicism

    “Everybody privately shit-talks everybody.” Uses an exaggeratedly negative view of human nature as a foundation to justify or normalize antisocial behavior.

    1. Moral Equivalence

    By implying that since everyone does it, exposing it via a viral hack is just revealing the “truth” and therefore not really unethical, it downplays the maliciousness of the hypothetical hack.

    Basically, your entire premise is a heap of logical fallacy and edgelord cringe.

    • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      20 days ago

      Your criticisms are very weak. Sorry.

      Instead of looking for ways to defeat me you should just go with it. For example you could consider what the societal upheaval would look like. How would we recover. What growth would it inspire etc.

      I mean, really. What difference to my point would 99% shit-talkers vs 100% make?

    • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      I am inspired to post by the prospect of discussing weird interesting stuff. I love doing that.

      Lots of fishing involved tho.

  • last_philosopher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    That would require some considerable effort to pull off.

    Something far more plausible: a bug in zoom that reverses the camera and/or microphone button functionality.

  • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Interesting. A few comments and criticisms on the details. Zero replies pertaining to my actual point. And lots of downvotes.

    They are afraid.

    • iglou@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 days ago

      Afraid of what? Replying to what point? Your “shower thought” (lmao) is just a messy thought process of which every single step is based on nothing.

      Why would we waste energy discussing consequences of events that will never happen?

      • rainrain@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        I think it’s quite plausible actually. Implicit to the present state of things. It’s just a nice hack away.

        At least an entertaining subject for speculation.

        But no, you people found a way to find it threatening. You people do that a lot.