This is certainly "a way", but history has shown, particularly in the United States, that government regulation is unlikely to get involved at all until it's far too late, if at all. Typically they're only regulating not only after maturity, but only when massive failure may cause issues for the wealthy and then the "regulation" is to bail them out.

Suggesting this here is so pie-in-the sky that it only creates a false hope (hope washing?) for the powerless. Is this sort of hope washing a recurring part of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTSEr0cRJY8

Starts out with four and a half minutes of anti-crypto and Web3 material. Presumably most of her audience is in the web3 space.

http://youvegotkat.neocities.org

Neocities: http://neocities.org

The Yesterweb: http://yesterweb.org

Marginalia Search: https://search.marginalia.nu/explore/random

It [the IndieWeb] is so so queer. Like it's super gay, super trans, super good.

The indie web also questions tech solutionism which often attempts to solve human problems by removing the human element. But easily the most remarkable and powerful thing about the internet is the ability it has to connect us with one another.

This is some really troubling developments for all first world people, especially educators

Tech solutionism can often seem useful because it appears to be cheaper, simpler, and easier to implement than making more difficult choices and larger, necessary social changes.

One needs to always ask what is the real underlying problem? What other methods are there for potential solutions? What are the knock-on effects of these potential solutions. Is the particular solution really just a quick fix or bandaid? Once implemented how will one measure the effects and adjust after-the-fact?

Tech solutionism is the presumption that technology (usually by itself) can fix a variety of social, cultural, and structural problems.

It fits into a category of problem that when one's tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

Many tech solutionism problems are likely ill-defined to begin with. Many are also incredibly complex and difficult which also tends to encourage bikeshedding, which is unlikely to lead us to appropriate solutions.

Emphasis on “still”. Direction of change?