This revision acknowledges the issues raised by my comments, but doesn't address them. The rewrite takes the fact of anxiety, or the "comfort zone" into the picture, but doesn't take up the invitation to consider the fact saliently. You're not only interacting with the people you want and expect to interact with: that's the myth. You are instead always interacting with a series of espionage companies powered by machines that comprehensively surveil you and remember everything you read, listen to, and do. To say that's a "comfort zone" is to have created a new and—at least to my mind—incoherent idea of comfort. But this draft is as little willing to come to grips with that as the last one. I don't think the question is, as the conclusion states, accepting discomfort. That would involve, say, living human life the way it was lived for several million years before the development of anesthesia. This is about deciding whether to accept the elimination of freedom.