The decentralisation of power has pushed the sole responsibility of the government to ensure collective good to the private entities ergo, making them autonomous. It gave the autonomous entity the capacity to uphold the responsibility to self-govern and self-optimisation such as the ability to reason what is good and bad independently. Thus, The strong emphasis of “Self ” hitherto on Thatcher’s remarkable quote “No Such Thing As Society” until today’s burgeoning practice of entrepreneurship has shown that J.S Mill’s utilitarian practice also deeply rooted in a neoliberalism society. Given that “self ” nor “private” as an autonomous entity based on “Homo oeconomicus” is deemed to be responsible for pursuing a goal that based on decisions that give him/herself the best outcome. However, the best result relies on whether the autonomous entity has sufficient capacity even when it comes to obtaining the basic necessity. According to Gershon, autonomous being is an assemblage of assets that continually developed on his/her own will to meet a specific benchmark of capabilities for him/her to acquire something that is inherently good for his/her welfare (Gershon, 2011). For instance, one has to be not just an impeccable Swiss Army knife but also one that can be upgraded nor polished at any time. Hence, the reality of the society no longer subjugated by the normative values of collective but by the Laissez-faire system that has turned everyone into a walking capital. Besides, Thanem and Wallenberg also argued that those who cannot achieve the goal deemed morally weak because they failed to self-optimise (Thanem and Wallenberg,2015). Since the goal embodied the needs and desires of the individual, the capacity that he/she needs in exchange depends on the neoliberal agency, the facilitator of needs. It inevitably fueled individual with the desire to seek for the agency of improvement to survive in this reality. In that sense, capacity is an institutionalised universal unit of exchange while desire is the fuel that allows individuals to reach their goal nor making the right decision. Hence, More is more, more is good, more is better has placed society in the delirium of consumption for good.

Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams described that the perpetual need for advancement marks the importance of education, an immaterial construct that keeps one capable to survive under the hegemony of Neoliberalism(Srnicek and Williams, 2015). It meant there’s a need for an abundance of information, immaterial products for capacity building. Therefore, people devoted themselves to the products and services produced by tech companies like Facebook, Alphabet, Apple, and so forth for living assurance. This was because the products are designed to fulfill their desire for self-optimisation and self-improvement. Nevertheless, it embodied the provision of “Progression”, “Abundance” and “self-optimisation” in which is essential for the Neoliberal life. For example, Utilitarian tools like iPhone allow users to stay connected incessantly, Fitbit provides bio-data for users to optimise their body and an immaterial platform like Google’s search engine enabling users to access the world of knowledge instantaneously. Such a provision often defined as an extension, an upgrade to our capacity let it be our social status or obtaining new skills in which it is rationally good for the people in this living reality. Likewise, Barbara felt good as she no longer has to be the black sheep of the community after adopting Neotouch in Wurth’s design fiction (Wurth,2018). Besides, users who played LovePlus, a virtual relationship game, fell in love with the digital avatar, Rinko Kobayakawa because it offers fantasies that overcome the insecurity of a real relationship like breakups, etc.; One of the users thinks this is deemed good for their wellbeing (DarkNet, 2016). Also, In this situation what’s good or evil is determined by the fulfillment of desire and the benefit in which is a mere utilitarian basis. What benefits “me” is essentially good has turned “ethics” into a consumer product in which the society only legitimises it when it suits one’s needs and fulfillment.

Nonetheless, it is feared that the concern for the loss of privacy lamented in this Pseudo research techno-paranoia design fiction and much other technological satire will hardly be taken seriously by the people since Han stated that neoliberalism had turned humankind into selfish consumers (Han and Butler, 2016). For that reason, they only care about whether the products or services still benefit them. Likewise, People still use social media and smart devices extensively despite The Facebook Cambridge Analytica data scandal and Edward Snowden revealed that NSA’s, mass surveillance program, Prism can trace all kinds of online communication. Besides, Wurth stated in her Neotouch research that people are aware of exploitation, but they still submit. This is because all that the tech companies need to do is to fulfill the desire of the users for self-optimisation that based on Bertrand Russell’s theory of four desires that drives humankind such as acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power (Russell,1950). However, the loss of agency on privacy and autonomy were not wholly because of tech companies designing ways to make people submit to them for gaining the incentives. I argue that it is mostly due to the social norm shaped by the neoliberal political project. In neoliberalism, self-identity is part of the capital that keeps the person sustainable as it just the capacity. Identity is an immaterial product that is constructed by an immaterial construct like knowledge. According to Han, when there are more information and communication, it increased productivity and growth ergo this made us voluntarily self expose to the internet, product, and services offered by tech companies (Han and Butler, 2016).

​

Although self-exposure is the Achilles heels of privacy lost, it also strengthens the ego of oneself, and that gave people agency on their own identity. Nevertheless, the reliance on the immaterial provision is formed to maintain the capacity as in identity before tech companies intervene in our lives and turn against us. The thirst of capacity indeed fosters the devotion, but motivated by the competition for gaining basic needs to live thus, conceived the selfish consumer as mentioned above. In this condition, neoliberalism is a psychopolitical project theorised by Byung Chul Han because it manages to psyche everyone into conformity by taking control of their inner thought, hidden wish, desire, and needs (Han and Butler, 2016). The relationship between the user, the “agency of improvement” and neoliberalism resembles the connections between people, the church, and religion scripted in the Bible, the Book of Revelation. Consequently, submission gives tech agency to improve the life of an autonomous being at the same time loses its own autonomy whereas to forgo the submission might be ethically irresponsible for an autonomous being.