4 ms·
Nearly 30% of people under 30 support gov't surveillance cameras in every home
- ftxbro 3y agoby their own study it's 29% and the question was "Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?"
- tikkun 3y agoYeah this is a very weird headline.
- ftxbro 3y agoit's the cato institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
- autokad 3y agothat's how tyranny works. if a large enough (like 15%) people are stupid enough to give up a basic right for a perceived safety, tyranny flourishes. "would you oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every househould?" me: Yes "but what if it were to reduce domestic violence?" me: STILL YES "but what if..." me: There is no BUTS, I oppose it for all reasons and forever. as long as >1% of people are stupid enough to be willing to sell their basic freedoms for such a thing, the safety of my freedom is at risk.
- lettergram 3y agoWhat if government instituted an app, where if you didn’t regularly have your 24/7 tracking device on you with gps, gyroscope and speaker on you couldn’t enter any buildings or leave your house. That was quite literally NYC, Ireland, and most of the “democracies” in the world the past few years. What did you think that QR code pass was lol
- euix 3y agoMy old man purchased a Huawei smartphone from China a few years back, I took a look at it last year as a potential hand-me-down and I noticed that a "Covid health" application system had been installed into the OS itself and couldn't be removed. I had no choice but to junk it despite the excellent hardware underneath the hood.
- rainsford 3y agoAlternatively, when you pose questions using push-poll style phrasing, you get push-poll style skewed responses that are not necessarily indicative of how many people would really support specific policies being enacted. That's why push polls are generally considered bad practice and a tool of people more interested in getting their preferred answer rather than discovering what people really think. This is the somewhat rare case of a push poll designed to elicit a response those running the poll think is bad, so they can complain about it, but the principle is the same. "Would you support X to prevent [Y that most people think is bad]?" is a garbage question, because saying "no" immediately suggests the person answering the question doesn't actually object to "Y". You personally may be comfortable implying to a stranger that you don't care about reducing domestic violence, but enough people are weirded out by the implication that they'll answer in a way that allows Cato to rile up their target audience. Of course supporting actual policies can work the same way, but polls aren't really a good way to measure this because there is zero cost in answering a poll compared to actually supporting something like a new law. It's one thing to tell a pollster you support a measure designed to combat domestic violence because you don't want to give the impression you don't care about the issue, it's another to support the measure in reality because now you have to consider all the other implications. Also this is hardly my biggest objection, but Cato predictably labels the Democratic party as "Democrat" in their results chart. In my experience this is remarkably accurate Shibboleth for obnoxious right-wing political actors and fundamentally unserious people.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- richk449 3y ago> that's how tyranny works. if a large enough (like 15%) people are stupid enough to give up a basic right for a perceived safety, tyranny flourishes Is that how tyranny works? Asking because I honestly don’t know. When the Americans rebelled against King James, was tyranny taking place because the majority of people were stupid and accepted safety by giving up some rights? What about nazi germany? Did the German people support hitler because he provided them safety? Or the original use of the word - did the Greeks accept tyrants as long as they provided safety?
- storkhm 3y agoAs if that question makes the idea less insane.
- gbraad 3y agoWhat the 1984?!
- bluefishinit 3y agoI wouldn't take a survey from the Cato Institute seriously. They're the propaganda arm of Charles Koch. Interesting fact, Charles Koch's father Fred Koch started the John Birch Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch#Political_views
- h2odragon 3y agoPlanned Parenthood was founded by people vocally in favor of eugenics. Does that affect the organization's credibility today? Or should we judge them based on what they're doing now instead of the past?
- version_five 3y agoShouldn't that affect it's credibility? (I only learned this from your comment and don't really have an opinion about them because I don't know anything about them). But if that's true, I'd want to st least understand what the motivations in starting it were, and if they are being achieved, of there's been a split, or if they were benign to begin with. I do agree that intent is irrelevant, it's what's actually happening that matters.
- waterbadger 3y agoBirth control is also rooted in eugenics. From 1909: "The Family and the Nation" by Arnold Gessel is published. In it he expresses the intentions of the The American Birth Control League that: "society need not wait for perfection of the infant science of eugenics before proceeding upon a course which will prevent renewal of defective protoplasm contaminating the stream of life." He also advocates for "eugenic violence" in dealing with inferiors. According to him, "We must do as with the feebleminded, organize the extinction of the tribe."
- eesmith 3y agoArnold Gessel wasn't Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here's what Planned Parenthood says about Margaret Sanger: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Oppos... Sanger's views were not that of the mainstream eugenics movement. Eg, she writes "Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state." Further, Planned Parenthood writes: > Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds [the views Sanger shared with 'the "progressives" of her day'] objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves. This is repudiation of those views of Sanger. What's the equivalent for the Cato Institute and Charles Koch?
- user6723 3y agoDemography is destiny
- ftxbro 3y agois this what they call dog whistle
- user6723 3y ago[flagged]
- hackermatic 3y agoLike the 1700s-1800s British, Irish, French, Germans, and Italians who founded and built the United States?
- user6723 3y ago> Irish > founded the United States lol
- suby 3y agoI doubt that this is true on the basis of how absurd it is. Who knows though, it would fit with and continue the theme of civilization being in-part the process of mankind domesticating itself.
- superkuh 3y agoI bet if they asked the same (contextually biased) question in Germany it'd be under 1%. Some lessons have to be re-learned by every other generation.
- Animats 3y agoThere's already the camera in the laptop, the camera in the phone, the camera in the TV, the camera in the doorbell, the camera in the vacuum cleaner...
- h2odragon 3y agogovernment camera: bad. Big Tech conglomerate mega corporation camera: good. Often that's the (false) choice being presented; and somehow "no camera at all" isn't on the menu.
- GenericDev 3y agoEw
- falcolas 3y agoTheir entire lives have been lived with little privacy. Cameras are just a part of their everyday lives - in and outside of the home. Many have had their entire adolescence recorded and displayed as their parents trophies. And that doesn’t even count how surveilled they are online by companies seeking to make a few pennies off their attention. I’d love to be surprised by this, but I’m not.
- quantified 3y agoNot only the pictures, but also the trackers on their phones so that their parents can watch their every move, and the helicopter parenting that sees a kidnapper's hands on every steering wheel. How many of them already have Ring cameras to feed the police as well?
- Gene5ive 3y agoI wouldn't trust a CATO study.
- Barrin92 3y agoVery slanted question which isn't surprising given that it's Cato. Focusing the question on the government aspect might get this kind of age-divided result but what came immediately to mind to me were religious 'shameware' apps used to spy on teens[1]. Nosy ring-doorbell neighbors and American Beauty style policing is popular in the US. What is generational though is the acceptance of the upsides of transparency through tech. Smartphone footage has become pretty important in documenting abuse from all kinds of sources so I don't really find the shifting attitude among younger people so surprising. Camera surveillance isn't just seen as dystopian but more as a means to bring things to light. [1]https://www.wired.com/story/covenant-eyes-anti-porn-accountability-monitoring-apps/ https://www.wired.com/story/covenant-eyes-anti-porn-accounta...
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- nahnahg 3y ago[dead]
- 31337Logic 3y agoJesus fuck, what?! Please tell me 30% of people under 30 aren't that fucking stupid.