3 ms·
No, that's reductive, though women would be less frequently oppressed. I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small way
by paulryanrogers 4y ago
No, that's reductive, though women would be less frequently oppressed.
I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small ways. And with enough resistance they may enact meaningful change.
Cameras are tightening the noose on the opposition to those in power.
- FormerBandmate 4y agoAmerica should not sell surveillance cameras to Iran. We are not, and literally no one is advocating for this. This is entirely on Iran, and maybe the Chinese company selling them cameras if it exists
- 1101010010 4y ago> women would be less frequently oppressed. That does not logically follow; another technology would just as soon take the place of surveillance cameras (phone tracking, social stigma, stricter laws and punishment). It is the intent of the oppressor and the courage of a culture to resist it that matters most.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoNot necessarily. And other methods may be less effective or less ubiquitous.
- DesiLurker 4y agoBut Isn't that true for most technology? it tends to amplify power & if there is already concentration of power than tech will make it worse. I mean even in US tech has created a lot more inequality (though growing the pie but still). sad thing is this is only the start, wait till you see what pervalant surveillance powered with AI/GPT-X brings.