Seriously. It seems like the subconscious anxieties and fears of the writer’s mind come through in statements like this and a few others. Whatever positives (real and imagined) there are about the situation, there is an underlying loss of personal autonomy that causes a sense unease. The thing that’s continuing to intrigue me now is: did the writer intend for that to come through, showing the losses a society of that nature would sustain as a commentary on those that promote it, or are they intentionally trying to downplay the loss of personal autonomy as if it’s not actually a large part of human happiness? Idk, weird article.