The problem with changing whitelist to "allowlist" is that it implies that people who use whitelist are racists. You're not just virtue signaling (and confusing my spellchecker) but causing discord.
It would be perfectly fine if people switched to "allowlist" because they think it's a better term, but that's not the reason. They do it because they want to virtue signal or they're afraid of their peers (because they'll be called racists).
Using "allowlist" is actually bad because it gives agitators power and they keep changing more words to get more power.
I personally don’t assume people who use whitelist are racist, or those who allowlist are virtue signaling.
However, I certainly do assume that people who chastise others for using “whitelist” are virtue signaling, and those who deride people for using “allowlist” are racist.
Both are easily understood and I generally assume good intention from people. Just live and let live.
Covert biological manipulation: If cells in specific organisms (including people) are engineered to respond to particular light patterns, then light could be used as a trigger to turn on harmful genes or disrupt normal biology in targeted groups, raising concerns about new classes of biological or “neuro” weapons.
Military and control applications: In combination with existing neurotechnology and optogenetics work (e.g., brain interfaces and neural stimulation), there are concerns about using light‑controlled genetic tools for enhancement, interrogation, or behavior influence in military or intelligence settings.
Ethical and societal risks:
Autonomy, consent, and “mind control” worries: Optogenetics already raises concerns about manipulating brain activity, permanence of genetic changes, informed consent, and vulnerability of specific populations once their cells are engineered to respond to light. GO intensifies this by linking genetic programming directly to external optical signals, which magnifies fears of remote influence or coercive use.
Safety, equity, and regulation: There are unresolved questions about long‑term safety, off‑target effects, error rates in in‑cell DNA/RNA synthesis, and who gets access to beneficial applications versus who is exposed to risk, all in a regulatory landscape that is still catching up with advanced gene and neurotechnologies.
Sources: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10730653
https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/UNIDIR_Neurote...
https://www.asimov.press/p/darpa-neurotech
https://www.bioinformatics.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=154...
Unless it’s your personal summary, in which case curious what sources you used, or if it’s from an LLM in which case I’ll just ask it myself.