I would tend to agree that we need policy and infrastructure that make real connection easier than the artificial kind.
However, subsidising community spaces would also be wrong. As you point out, the government (national, local and regulatory agencies) need to get their knee off people's neck so that they have the freedom to pursue these social endeavours without red tape and restrictions.
As you've shown so well, it is this bureaucracy and burdens of the state which distort the playing field to make technology interactions more profitable than real life interactions.
I agree that subsidies are the worst option of the 3, however I mention them because they’re still an avenue worth noting (and, realistically, probably the one most likely to be implemented given the current instincts of our government). Ideally, the goal would be to make subsidies unnecessary by removing the barriers that stop people and communities from doing these things themselves, but one can dream.
Very interesting article. Thank you.
I would tend to agree that we need policy and infrastructure that make real connection easier than the artificial kind.
However, subsidising community spaces would also be wrong. As you point out, the government (national, local and regulatory agencies) need to get their knee off people's neck so that they have the freedom to pursue these social endeavours without red tape and restrictions.
As you've shown so well, it is this bureaucracy and burdens of the state which distort the playing field to make technology interactions more profitable than real life interactions.
Thank you for the kind comment!
I agree that subsidies are the worst option of the 3, however I mention them because they’re still an avenue worth noting (and, realistically, probably the one most likely to be implemented given the current instincts of our government). Ideally, the goal would be to make subsidies unnecessary by removing the barriers that stop people and communities from doing these things themselves, but one can dream.