So, uh, I know we’ve been keeping track of neural mining references. There’s a pretty intense one in the Zhupao article. Under, uh, Mass Brainjacking.
I’m…pretty horrified and freaked out. What the hell. Especially in light of the CMD “diagnosis”. I’m not sure how it all keeps getting more invasive and creepy but it does. Going to go watch some Finally Awake streams and try to gather myself.
There’s a new citation that seems relevant on the Blankout article, too:
The allegations that Adira has the ability to brainjack people is back on the blankout article, too. That’s seeming more and more like projection and misdirection to me.
Another thing to note :
On the Blankouts article, the following has been edited out
These concerns have been disputed by researchers, as colloid-enabled neurotechnology is not capable of forcing people into complex actions or removing memories, and there have been no witness reports of people doing anything illegal or out of character during blankouts.
Emphasis mine. Not sure if it’s been changed to support Adira-paranoïa or because colloids apparently can edit your memories and affect your behavior, but yeah.
Good job catching this for posterity - the controversies section is gone from the Zhupao article. (Surprise, surprise.) Here are the deleted citations, courtesy of my handy local cache:
- Daems, A; Sajjadi, E; Ariyawansa, P. (November 2040). “Gathering your thoughts: a new frontier of extractive capitalism.” World News Wire.
- Borges, M. (December 2040). “Zhupao is abusing colloids to make you forget they’re mining your thoughts.” Ethercon.
Your comment sent me digging through my article cache to look at the edit history of that part of the Blankout article.
The concerns about blankouts being a new kind of brainjacking and the possible link to Adira were added on the 5th; on the 6th, Zhupao’s neural mining operation was added as a possible cause before being stealth-edited out. Then on the 7th was the (IMO, fishy and stilted) edit about the concerns being disputed by researchers etc.
It could be that the neural mining reference brought the article to the attention of another editor, and that’s what led to the “brainjacking? what, no, that’s impossible!” edit on the 7th.