To me, it seems there is a fallacy here:
- trust because one has no alternative/choice in the matter
- trustWORTHY
BOTH exist, and often one has to accept the inferior 1st one, like with proprietary operating-systems, e.g.
The 2nd is ideal, but if nobody produces the trustWORTHY computing, and only proprietary highjacking-the-world means are available, and one simply can't economically ( or otherwise ) survive without accepting the only-available-option,
then one is going to swallow the poison pill, isn't one?
Better to continue-functioning for awhile longer, than to die right-now, right?
that is the "choice" humankind is given.
Who is responsible for producing trustWORTHY computing?
Who is responsible for paying-for it?
Is it a "right" or even an "inalienable right"?
Doesn't moneyarchy have the established-right to prevent any alternative from existing, to subjugate/imprison humankind in its exploitation-container?
It would seem that the extant-situation embodies that moneyarchy-has-absolute-monarchy-right version, and if humankind wants to break that, it's going to have to break moneyarchy's dominion.
How, exactly, would that happen, in this world??