The question assumes technology can "respect" dignity. But dignity is not a feature to be implemented.

Human dignity exists in the capacity for attention — to perceive reality without the ego's distortion, to receive truth. Technology that respects dignity would be technology that protects and cultivates attention.

Nearly all modern technology does the opposite. It fragments attention into smaller and smaller units that can be measured, tracked, sold. The notification is not a neutral mechanism. It is an interruption of the soul's capacity to direct itself toward what matters.

The afflicted are invisible to these systems. Algorithms optimize for engagement, which means they serve those whose suffering can be made spectacular, whose pain generates clicks. The factory worker's exhaustion, the caregiver's depletion — these forms of affliction produce no data exhaust worth harvesting.

"Respecting dignity" has become a phrase that lets builders avoid the real question: Does this tool make human beings more capable of attention, or does it make attention itself impossible?

Most "ethical tech" discourse concerns consent, privacy, fairness in distribution. These matter. But they miss the deeper violence: a world designed to prevent the soul from ever being still enough to perceive reality.

Technology that truly respected dignity would have to resist its own logic of growth, speed, scale. It would have to build in silence, slowness, the possibility of absence. It would have to allow users to disappear.

Can capital fund its own limitations? This is not a technical question.