December 16, 2025
Fate vs clickbait
This is not the future
Internet fights back: bad tech isn’t destiny, we still get a say
TLDR: A blogger argues tech ‘inevitability’ is a sales pitch and calls modern gadgets abusive. Comments erupted: some cheer the pushback, others ask if VR headsets and landfill power really count, and everyone groans at the phone duopoly—proof that the “future” is still up for debate.
The blog This is not the future lit a fuse with its nothing is inevitable rallying cry, blasting the idea that “use AI because it’s the future” is anything more than marketing. The author calls modern tech abusive—from phones to software—and says people have been trained to accept change without consent. Cue the comments: notpachet drops a movie line like a mic, “Mortality as home entertainment… this cannot be the future!!,” turning existential dread into meme fuel.
The crowd split fast. gorgoiler complains that two US phone giants owning 99% of the market feels “like a rock in my boot,” sparking duopoly dread. oblio backs the thesis: history isn’t prewritten—someone chooses, someone enables. nancyminusone, meanwhile, corrects a spicy line about “garbage companies” by clarifying it meant bad companies, not landfill power plants—cue the eco-nerd sidebar. And ekianjo challenges the list’s inclusion of Apple’s fancy headset: is Vision Pro really “abusive,” or just a pricey toy? Between AI disclosure policies (translation: “you can use generative AI—tools that make text and images—if you admit it”), nostalgia for the wild 80s/90s computer era, and jokes about IBM gatekeeping, the mood is: stop calling everything destiny—we still get to choose.
Key Points
- •The article critiques the idea that technology adoption is inevitable, triggered by a policy allowing generative AI use with disclosure.
- •It argues modern technology often diminishes user agency and conditions users to accept constant change.
- •The author maintains that FOSS is not a guaranteed remedy for problematic tech ecosystems.
- •Some products are acknowledged as beneficial, yet the author contends that consent and demand are frequently manufactured through marketing.
- •The piece urges treating technology choices as political statements and trade-offs, focusing on a desirable future rather than inevitability claims.