The evolution of information technology is made into a trap.
The sector requires lots of work, and therefore there's a high demand in it for stable jobs; as a consequence the evolution of information technology is studied in order to use planned obsolescence to create a planned dependence with which to bind the customer permanently.
This generates a) obsessive change for its own sake with all the consequences thereof, and b) a frequency of updates which reached and crossed the line of paroxysm.
In order to bind the customer they seek to make updates mandatory, and in order to squeeze him they seek to make them not backwards compatible.
Moreover, information technology is of immense complexity, therefore it tends to subdivide into an innumerable number of complementary components that must get along and function, and each of them tends to paroxysmal, mandatory, not backwards compatible, updates, generating a potential immense number of problems of compatibility among components.
Ask yourself this question: if every bone, nerve and muscle of the body that drives you around were subject to mandatory, paroxysmal, and not backwards nor reciprocally compatible, what would happen to your life and your freedom?
Not to mention that all the increase in performance produced by the advancement of devices is deliberately wasted in a complication of programs totally unnecessary and counter-productive, so that we often find ourselves in the paradox that, with the most modern tools, either we cannot do what we did with the older tools any more, or we do it worse.
The result is that both the operators and the users of information technology see an ever increasing amount of their time and their energies sucked up by the poisoned fruits of planned obsolescence, obsessive change and planned dependence on updates, and the proportion of its amount so sucked up has now reached and exceeded every reasonable limit.
To draw a comparison with an automobile, with information technology we have an automobile on our hands requiring more time and resources than those available only to be maintained, without ever leaving the garage and taking us anywhere.
This is not just sheer folly: this is bad faith.
On the one hand, it is a form of hamster wheel: it sucks up our time and our energies to the aim of leaving us permanently deprived of them.
On the other hand, it is a form of creeping expropriation: the de facto control over the tools which are our property, and over how we use them, progressively moves more and more in the hands of those who supplied them to us, and who can arbitrary condition us in the use of what is our property, to the purpose of let us progressively forget the very concept of property, and thus get us used to being de facto slaves.
An example of both hamster wheel and creeping expropriation are the digital credentials imposed on us.
We are induced, if not even forced, to use an inordinate number of digital "services", and each forces us to create credentials, requires us that they have a certain degree of complexity, and requires us that we change them with a given frequency and according to certain rules, such as that they are always different.
To realise what are we talking about, we must compare it with the keys to our house.
In a physical key, the information needed to open the lock is contained in the key; in a digital credential that information is contained in our mind.
If instead of one key we have ten keys, the ten informations needed are all contained in the keys.
If we are induced, or forced, to use ten digital services, instead of one credential we have ten of them, and the ten informations needed are all in our mind.
If we are forced to change them ten times a year, and required that they are always different, within a year they become one hundred.
Is the hamster wheel clear?
Let's then suppose that they lock the locks to our house, and force us to change them, when and how they like, locking us out of our house.
Is the creeping expropriation clear?