Grandpa’s definitions do not need to be our definitions.
People are playing some banal brinksmanship game “oooh that fall afoul of some vague mutable truth we’ve been conditioned to believe is immutable; get im fellas!”
What are you all going to do to STOP the problems? Debating the diagnosis is allowing it to spread. Only real change in agency will stop it and no one seems into that.
So why sit here thinking answering your questions is useful?
Last I checked there is a thriving techno-political culture of decentralization and privacy rights fighting this. A lot of people are in fact doing a lot. Don't worry kiddo! The adults are working on it even if it seems futile.
FYI it isn't a strawman to ask whether you have a cogent argument for why technofeudalism isn't happening.
You asserted the proposition that technofeudalism isn't a thing (strongly implied)
The respondent didn't construct a superficially similar proposition (I.e. a strawman) and simply asked what support you have for your proposition.
A strawman would have been like if someone argued against your proposition that "But the Snowden leaks showed we live in a surveillance state!" This is a Strawman because it constructs a superficially similar position to "technofeudalism is a thing" without actually at all arguing against the position that technofeudalism is not a thing.
