[...] Think the series is his doing, but episode three had a different writer at least. Episode three seemed to have this view, maybe not of ludditry, but at least the desirability of critical analysis in transhumanism. The off-hand comment at the table of "I've heard hookers sometimes remove them" seems to try to show the absurdity of shared reliance -- the same concept as "if everyone advertised it would have the same effect as nobody advertising" -- an effort to stay in the bounds of societal norms and professional enhancement. The main character seemed to be conflicted between knowing the truth and acting upon it, note that he had to get drunk to resort to physical violence. This seemed again to be a comment on failure to release from social acceptability. Maybe not ludditry, but it feels like it was about the importance of critically analysing transhumanism rather than anything else.

Also I think in Episode three Brooker is mentioned in the credits and was marketed as his work, so seems likely he would be involved. I also don't think that the last has Luddite views, as Brooker is defiantly not one, I feel it is trying to be a less practical comment on society and a more philosophical one. If you take it as showing the importance of forgetting then it is a quite interesting concept. On the other hand the main character felt badly developed, as at first he seemed to be a paranoid obsessive, but in the end of was proven right, with the final scene showing him regaining his humanity, eg the ability to forget and not go over every memory in the smallest detail.

Funny that you adressed the sexuality as leading theme in all 3 episodes, I noticed that too CrashSite. I have to agree with Chris about episode 1, it was in itself as sensationalist as the things it tried to condemn, and at times felt really contrived trying to twist it's plot into making some weak points that are not really discussed further. Episode 1 and 2 get a lot of ideas from the Marxist theory of alienation, and continuations of that matter by Guy Debord (Society of the Spectacle). Interesting, and very well put to screen, but, as previously said, the concepts arent really explored further than just "pointing things out". Episode 3 wandered around and ultimately couldn't decide on a core statement to make. Ultimately it was just a story of a mad man, as the rest of society seemed to function fine with this seemingly out-of-place piece of technology. Would type more but no time now ;D d2m, you were saying? ;D

It should be mentioned that Brooker didn't have anything to do with episode 3, I believe. In my opinion the first episode was pretty weak. It seemed to be exploring hypocritical expectations and voyeurism, but ultimately degraded into juvenile sniggers and cliché plotlines. The second episode was fantastic, and in my opinion was the best by far. So many concepts explored. First of all, the whole plot revolves around people powering their own existence. It seems very removed from reality, but in fact, this is a fair representation of reality, where money is the ultimate carrot on a stick, ultimately producing exportable and unrevolutionary products and saleables rather than new ideas and concepts. Lots of other stuff, too, but if I go into it all I'll probably end up making this a page long post (misanthropy, hypocrisy, luck and chance, whether money is a true measure of success, love, watered-down commercialism, helplessness, amongst other concepts). One thing I never heard mentioned when discussing it with people afterwards is this idea that he is acceptant of other people's roles in society, but when these people have direct relation to him, he feels personally responsible (but he doesn't feel that personal responsibility is invoked by capitalistic exploitation). Episode three was weak-ish, explored ludditry and transhumanism, but ultimately just felt like a cliché.

It should be mentioned that Brooker didn't have anything to do with episode 3, I believe.

Would be interested in hearing other's thoughts and interpretations and we might get some interesting discourse.