Software doesn't control a knob. You can turn it left or right whenever you like and the volume goes up – or down. On/off switches work similarly. When cars had buttons and knobs to control various things, the driver was in control of them. Now – with the advent of LCD touchscreens – he's allowed to use them, but only under certain conditions.

For example, the GPS in many new vehicles will not let you enter a destination while the vehicle is moving; the Honda Pilot I reviewed this week won't let you ask Alexa anything unless you first stop the vehicle. It effectively renders these features temporarily useless and adds an annoyance tax to the vehicle. Why should we have to pay this tax? Put another way: Why are the vehicle manufacturers asserting supervisory authority over vehicles they have sold?

Imagine if, after you bought a house, you discovered the contractor who built it was exerting control over the front door, using software to lock it (or unlock it) according to his preferences. The toilet would only flush if you remained seated for a certain amount of time. In fact, this kind of supervisory control is already being exerted – or can be exerted –  by "smart" devices within the home that can be externally controlled by the corporations that sold them to you. "Smart" meters can decide you have used (or are using) too much power and turn down (or turn off) the AC or heat.

The interesting part isn't so much the control but what you were sold.

In the Before Time, when you bought a thing, it was yours to use as you saw fit. My old muscle car, for instance. It does not exert supervisory control over me. If I want to change the station, I turn the dial – and the station changes. The car does not lock me out of any functions, anytime. I can smoke the tires at will; there is no electronic, for-my-safety nanny that "intervenes" to "limit wheelslip" as is standard equipment in new vehicles. The assumption is you need intervention and – more deeply – that you are not the owner of the vehicle you bought. You're allowed to use it. The distinction is important.How can you be described as the owner of a thing if the thing is capable of exerting supervisory control over how you're allowed to use it?

Imagine you bought a chainsaw but it won't allow you to cut a tree you want to cut down because the chainsaw decides that the tree's too big or that you aren't capable of competently cutting it down. Maybe it has heat sensors and decides when the ambient temp is above 90 degrees, it's too hot – not "safe" for you to be cutting down trees. It's funny but it's not much of an exaggeration and that's why it isn't funny.

This supervisory control thing got its snout under the tent a long time ago, when pushmowers – one of the first examples – would only stay running if you kept your hands on the handle. A deadman bar was installed on all pushmowers that released and cut the engine if you took your hands off the handle – on the assumption that you are an idiot and will put your hand into the running mower blade unless the mower parents you, by killing the engine so you can't do that. More finely, the assumption is that everyone is an idiot and therefore everyone's lawn mower must shut off if anyone takes their hands off the handle. It's time to pay the annoyance tax – in the form of having to pull-start the engine to get it running again, after you stopped for a moment to grab a cold drink. This was allowed to pass – and that is why so much else has come to pass.