4 ms·

For me, being spied on by "my" government matters. Do you really not care about that?

alwa 3y ago
Can’t both be true? If I or GP do indeed care a lot about this example of our government’s behavior, wouldn’t it frustrate us even more that the messenger’s ill intentions or sketchy decisions during the disclosure make it easier to cast doubt on the substance of what he’s showing?
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  I don't think there's any doubt at all that what he disclosed is true, correct? Snowden isn't part of this story because what he did/didn't do doesn't change the fact that what he reported is the truth. Discussing him at all distracts from that.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
I don't. It's common knowledge that the government consumes huge volumes of social media data that people willfully give away. It's information that is far more invasive into their private lives than anything the government could come up with on their own via their 3 letter agencies, yet people do it anyway. That ship sailed a long time ago in the name of convenience. All outrage past that point is simply performative.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  It's not just public social media info, it's private info as well. It's discouraging to see people openly state that they don't care about that.
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    Am I really supposed to sit here and pretend that social media companies don't know private information about the people who use their platforms? Every single one of them know who you are, where you are, what your opinions are, and who you do business with, and they ALL sell that information to the government. So no, I don't care, because until THAT is an issue which is addressed, the rest of the arguments on the subject are moot. I don't think anyone should have any of that information, but there's no point in giving a shit if people are going to refuse to be logically consistent.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      > Am I really supposed to sit here and pretend that social media companies don't know private information about the people who use their platforms? I'd say that's also a huge problem, it doesn't have to be either/or. The thing is, FB or Google don't employ people with guns and can't throw you in prison. The vast majority of people also wouldn't expect the US government to be reading their private messages illegally and without a warrant.
      - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
        > The thing is, FB or Google don't employ people with guns and can't throw you in prison. They SELL YOUR INFORMATION to people with guns who can throw you in prison AND they gather far more of it than the people with the guns.
        bluefishinit 3y ago
        They do sell your information and that's a huge problem. They don't have more data on you though, because the gov is aggregating all of that + what they get from programs like PRISM. Consider the likes of FB selling your data to the gov a part of the same program that Snowden shed light on.
- jrm4 3y ago
  This is the worst comment I've seen here; it fundamentally misunderstands how you get change. There's a massively huge difference between "everybody knows" -- and "everybody knows THAT everybody knows."
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    What change? We got no change. Every single goddamned thing that the article listed was coming down the pike regardless, and we STILL have our bulk unencrypted information sold to the Feds. Spare me the hand-wringing. The only thing Snowden actually accomplished was a one-way ticket to Eastern Bloc griftsville. Thank you for proving my point for me.

alwa 3y ago

Can’t both be true? If I or GP do indeed care a lot about this example of our government’s behavior, wouldn’t it frustrate us even more that the messenger’s ill intentions or sketchy decisions during the disclosure make it easier to cast doubt on the substance of what he’s showing?

bluefishinit 3y ago
I don't think there's any doubt at all that what he disclosed is true, correct? Snowden isn't part of this story because what he did/didn't do doesn't change the fact that what he reported is the truth. Discussing him at all distracts from that.

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

I don't. It's common knowledge that the government consumes huge volumes of social media data that people willfully give away. It's information that is far more invasive into their private lives than anything the government could come up with on their own via their 3 letter agencies, yet people do it anyway. That ship sailed a long time ago in the name of convenience. All outrage past that point is simply performative.

bluefishinit 3y ago
It's not just public social media info, it's private info as well. It's discouraging to see people openly state that they don't care about that.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  Am I really supposed to sit here and pretend that social media companies don't know private information about the people who use their platforms? Every single one of them know who you are, where you are, what your opinions are, and who you do business with, and they ALL sell that information to the government. So no, I don't care, because until THAT is an issue which is addressed, the rest of the arguments on the subject are moot. I don't think anyone should have any of that information, but there's no point in giving a shit if people are going to refuse to be logically consistent.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    > Am I really supposed to sit here and pretend that social media companies don't know private information about the people who use their platforms? I'd say that's also a huge problem, it doesn't have to be either/or. The thing is, FB or Google don't employ people with guns and can't throw you in prison. The vast majority of people also wouldn't expect the US government to be reading their private messages illegally and without a warrant.
    - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
      > The thing is, FB or Google don't employ people with guns and can't throw you in prison. They SELL YOUR INFORMATION to people with guns who can throw you in prison AND they gather far more of it than the people with the guns.
      - bluefishinit 3y ago
        They do sell your information and that's a huge problem. They don't have more data on you though, because the gov is aggregating all of that + what they get from programs like PRISM. Consider the likes of FB selling your data to the gov a part of the same program that Snowden shed light on.
jrm4 3y ago
This is the worst comment I've seen here; it fundamentally misunderstands how you get change. There's a massively huge difference between "everybody knows" -- and "everybody knows THAT everybody knows."
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  What change? We got no change. Every single goddamned thing that the article listed was coming down the pike regardless, and we STILL have our bulk unencrypted information sold to the Feds. Spare me the hand-wringing. The only thing Snowden actually accomplished was a one-way ticket to Eastern Bloc griftsville. Thank you for proving my point for me.