What I came to realise is that the comments revealed something underneath the mechanism. Most people are not missing information. They are missing permission. Permission to say what they already see. Permission to name what they already know without being told they are wrong, or naive, or that they do not understand how things work.
Gen Z thinks internet access is a human right. But they're growing up inside systems they didn't choose and can't escape. What's the responsibility of builders who know the lock-in is deliberate? Genuinely asking. I don't have this answer.
You've named the second act. The first act was making the tool so frictionless that understanding stopped mattering. The second act is making the alternative impossible. A business runs on tools they didn't build and can't rebuild. Not because they're stupid. Because the company that owns the dashboard deliberately made the vendor lock-in a feature, not a bug. And now the only person who understands the full chain is the one collecting the subscription. That's not convenience. That's leverage disguised as service.
We can't run the business without the subscription.' They named it clearly. They see the lock-in. But here's what I'm sitting with: knowing you're dependent isn't the same as being free from dependency. So what's the gap? What's in that space between seeing the cage and leaving it? Genuinely asking.
This seems possible, because there’s a system in place that sponsors, and trough time has made us trow away our privacy, our intimate moments, our quiet times, so we ourselves feed the system, make the cogs move. Nothing wrong with that, but today extraction seems to be the cold dish serve to us, almost every day.
Thanks for nothing - this will live in my head rent-free for some time! Diamantino, you address the cognitive side of technology. I have been concerned about the emotional side. Seamless, easy, inscrutable technology applications make life pleasant, but also remove the joy, wonder, and uncertainty. For example, GPS navigation aids plan, decide, and reroute us to our destination, often with us missing the entire journey. This is not to say technology is not useful; it is. But it also removes both the cognitive and emotional aspects of our humanity if we let it.
Much appreciated. This is why I write like this and about this topics. I want us to start thinking more about this, instead of going into solution oriented mode first.
You got it right. We used to drive using paper maps and have vivid memories of the places we have been. Now, as you said, we spend most of our time passively observing and following rather than deciding. This is engineered, representing typical vendor lock-in but with a tremendous impact on our cognitive functions. It is a system designed for extraction, not for our enhancement.
Thank you Dennis. The "who has the time" is not laziness. It is a feature, the systems are designed to feel too complex to question and if understanding feels like a full-time job, most people will outsource their judgment and never look back.
The education point is real but I wonder if we have the framing slightly wrong. Most people will not sit through a course on how recommendation algorithms work. But most people will ask a harder question if someone they trust puts it in front of them in plain language.
Which is part of why I write this. Not to make everyone an engineer. But to make the question feel possible.
Love this urgent call for curiosity over blind dependency. Your point that making tools simple enough that questions never form perfectly illustrates why we must understand the logical foundations of the systems we trust. I commend you for reminding us that the minimum condition for freedom in a technical world is the willingness to ask why. Very nice article!
Thank you, Frank. What you said about understanding the logical foundations that's what I’m trying to express. When you move from using the tool to choosing whether to use it. That choice, that capacity to say no, that's what freedom actually requires. Not perfection in the system. Just the ability to see it clearly enough to decide.
The less you understand it, the more dependent you become. The more dependent you become, the more useful you are to the people who built it. That's not a side effect. That's the entire design. Which is why the first act of resistance isn't learning how it works. It's asking why you're not allowed to know.
What I came to realise is that the comments revealed something underneath the mechanism. Most people are not missing information. They are missing permission. Permission to say what they already see. Permission to name what they already know without being told they are wrong, or naive, or that they do not understand how things work.
If this landed, say something below. Or just subscribe. The next one arrives in your inbox on Tuesday.
https://newsletter.diamantinoalmeida.com/subscribe
Gen Z thinks internet access is a human right. But they're growing up inside systems they didn't choose and can't escape. What's the responsibility of builders who know the lock-in is deliberate? Genuinely asking. I don't have this answer.
During my research while writing this piece, I found this news from last year:
"According to recent research, Generation Z firmly believes that internet access should be recognised as a "human right"."
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/internet-access-human-right-tendendo-31052406
Convenience is the ultimate lock-in. We traded our autonomy for a dashboard, and now we can't run the business without the subscription.
The real danger is when the business/people can't even articulate what they've lost.
You've named the second act. The first act was making the tool so frictionless that understanding stopped mattering. The second act is making the alternative impossible. A business runs on tools they didn't build and can't rebuild. Not because they're stupid. Because the company that owns the dashboard deliberately made the vendor lock-in a feature, not a bug. And now the only person who understands the full chain is the one collecting the subscription. That's not convenience. That's leverage disguised as service.
We can't run the business without the subscription.' They named it clearly. They see the lock-in. But here's what I'm sitting with: knowing you're dependent isn't the same as being free from dependency. So what's the gap? What's in that space between seeing the cage and leaving it? Genuinely asking.
This seems possible, because there’s a system in place that sponsors, and trough time has made us trow away our privacy, our intimate moments, our quiet times, so we ourselves feed the system, make the cogs move. Nothing wrong with that, but today extraction seems to be the cold dish serve to us, almost every day.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks for nothing - this will live in my head rent-free for some time! Diamantino, you address the cognitive side of technology. I have been concerned about the emotional side. Seamless, easy, inscrutable technology applications make life pleasant, but also remove the joy, wonder, and uncertainty. For example, GPS navigation aids plan, decide, and reroute us to our destination, often with us missing the entire journey. This is not to say technology is not useful; it is. But it also removes both the cognitive and emotional aspects of our humanity if we let it.
Much appreciated. This is why I write like this and about this topics. I want us to start thinking more about this, instead of going into solution oriented mode first.
You got it right. We used to drive using paper maps and have vivid memories of the places we have been. Now, as you said, we spend most of our time passively observing and following rather than deciding. This is engineered, representing typical vendor lock-in but with a tremendous impact on our cognitive functions. It is a system designed for extraction, not for our enhancement.
Great thoughts to ponder. Most don’t think through to the other side of the app. Especially now… who has the time, right?!?
The technology and power that goes into a single process that can affect millions of people is mind boggling.
But nobody sees the other side.
Will it change? Likely not.
It would have to be in an educational setting which most won’t voluntarily take.
Will be Interesting to watch it unfold 🔥
Thank you Dennis. The "who has the time" is not laziness. It is a feature, the systems are designed to feel too complex to question and if understanding feels like a full-time job, most people will outsource their judgment and never look back.
The education point is real but I wonder if we have the framing slightly wrong. Most people will not sit through a course on how recommendation algorithms work. But most people will ask a harder question if someone they trust puts it in front of them in plain language.
Which is part of why I write this. Not to make everyone an engineer. But to make the question feel possible.
Love this urgent call for curiosity over blind dependency. Your point that making tools simple enough that questions never form perfectly illustrates why we must understand the logical foundations of the systems we trust. I commend you for reminding us that the minimum condition for freedom in a technical world is the willingness to ask why. Very nice article!
Thank you, Frank. What you said about understanding the logical foundations that's what I’m trying to express. When you move from using the tool to choosing whether to use it. That choice, that capacity to say no, that's what freedom actually requires. Not perfection in the system. Just the ability to see it clearly enough to decide.
Technology trades convenience for dependency…
The less you understand it, the more dependent you become. The more dependent you become, the more useful you are to the people who built it. That's not a side effect. That's the entire design. Which is why the first act of resistance isn't learning how it works. It's asking why you're not allowed to know.
Yes. And the convenience is the business model. The easier it is to use, the less you need to understand it.