But the argument was that they "improved the world", not that they were a good cost/benefit tradeoff for each individual consumer.
One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not.
You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.
One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not.
You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.