I sometimes think this way but I do wonder whether this would be true in a world where individuals demand more control over the impacts of their work. It seems that the current problem is that the labor of the 98% (or whatever number you like) is well-aligned with the demands of the 2% without principles who seem to have a strong propensity to end up in leadership positions. It reminds me of the simulations people run where in a high-trust world scammers do well, while in a low-trust world they die off only to then lead to a new high-trust world.

If enough people make decisions like OP and only perform work that they believe in (for one reason or another) perhaps that redirects the path to power for the 2% such that they need to act in the interests of the 98% rather than the other way around. I think OP was very late to the train here and I had made a similar career switch in the past for similar reasons but I'm happy to see other people making decisions that, if nothing else, will make them feel that they are in control of the impacts of their time and hard-work. Not sure how things will balance out in the end/distant future but we do our best and try to lead a life we feel good about living.

Don't play fair in a game others cheat.

People tend to agree that immigration enforcement can be necessary (except for that pocket of philosophical bohemians that accept that people should be able to flow as free or freer than capital if we are truly free at all). But interestingly, most people feel immigrants that did not enter through legal means should be able to stay in a lot of circumstances!

People almost universally agree that stripping citizenship from naturalized citizens is way too far (no cite here, just recalling a recent read).

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/22/most-amer...

Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral.

TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?

Honestly? A few ideas

1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US.

2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary.

3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming.

4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."

This is false.

> Good was in her car, stopped sideways in the street, which led Ross to circle her vehicle on foot. Other agents approached, and one ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing several feet away at the front-left of the vehicle which was turning away, when he fired three shots, killing her.

[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-af...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good

Perhaps it would be helpful to understand that people feel it necessary to flag the comment -- I tried to explain it in my parent comment here.

Well one way you can understand why the poster finds it controversial would be to read it before commenting.

i don’t think statements like this help reinforce how serious the situation is; rather, it subtly normalizes it.

Thats fine, but a serious luxury belief IMO

AI is the end of the funnel and I actually think the mass surveillance at the beginning of the funnel is a bigger issue. The concentration of power is the problem. If you or I could defend ourselves against state level actors with AI weapons, then they would be a good thing (imho). AI and mass surveillance at the state level create a power imbalance that is a major threat to human rights and should be resisted as much as possible.