This just reminds me of the lack of popular, informed, critical, literate conversation about the risks (privacy risks and others) of widespread, centralized mm-wave cell networks. It's an awful taboo. People think you're spouting conspiracy theories when you link to published, peer reviewed papers that lay it all out. Or worse, industry whitepapers that literally spell out surveillance applications will get perceived as conspiratorial pseudoscientific nonsense. In the name of science.
It's a sick inversion of the conspiracy theory dynamic. In the mm-wave cell network case, industries, governments and academics are spelling out the plan and implementing it in broad daylight.
But if you speak critically of the plan, you don't know what you're talking about because you're no science expert. Well and even if you have a PhD in science, it's in the wrong field so you must be crazy.
Anyhow, a lot of the most interesting stuff gets relegated to the fringes, especially when it has the potential to stir up dominant social or political perspectives.
It's gaslighting by orthodoxy.
It's a sick inversion of the conspiracy theory dynamic. In the mm-wave cell network case, industries, governments and academics are spelling out the plan and implementing it in broad daylight.
But if you speak critically of the plan, you don't know what you're talking about because you're no science expert. Well and even if you have a PhD in science, it's in the wrong field so you must be crazy.
Anyhow, a lot of the most interesting stuff gets relegated to the fringes, especially when it has the potential to stir up dominant social or political perspectives.
It's gaslighting by orthodoxy.