You're fundamentally wrong and you've been told countless times.
Making a product that does not do the desired job for somebody isn't
oppressing this person.
I hesitate to go any deeper in this, because this sentence is completely self
explanatory and i feel kind of stupid to point it out.
I don't agree at all with your idea about "if the person doesn't feel
oppressed, then it's not oppression".
How do you reach this absurd conclusion?
Because somebody doesn't realize that he's in prison... he's free?
We all want functional technology, but if it just doesn't exist, that's just
unfortunate. We have to do without them.
Maybe there is the technology we want, but it's designed in an unethical way
and mistreats us.
Well, same difference: we have to do without them.
It's like: A shame that it doesn't exist in the way we want!
Still, we're not oppressed.
I think compromising one's freedom is never a good choice, but maybe you
shouldn't have been so hard on yourself.
I personally set up some threshold of inconvenience i'm willing to endure so
that i still get along with the rest of my life.
That's sure better than giving up my ideology completely and starting to
rationalize why it's no good anyway.
