4 ms·

A four year investigation to tell us what we already know. The real question is: What is the federal government (or anyone else) going to do about it?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
There are plenty of people who "know" things that are actually wrong. This investigation is an important first step for the government to feel confident they know what's going on before exercising state power, which is, you know, a good thing. Vibes- or rumor-based exercise of state power is ill advised. The Biden FTC has been quite aggressive against all sorts of anti-consumer practices throughout the economy which tend to follow these types of reports. I suspect action is coming relatively soon.
khana 2y ago
[dead]
janalsncm 2y ago
A lot of people wonder why we study and document things that are already “common knowledge”. This is true of scientific studies as well. What a waste of money, right? The answer is, until you actually do the work you don’t actually know. Scientists and government officials can’t cite common knowledge. And even if you were right about the conclusion, the details matter. The amount matters. The mechanisms matter.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > government officials can’t cite common knowledge Government officials can cite whatever they want, including stuff they pulled out of their ass, as long as they have the votes.
- iterance 2y ago
  High-quality studies also lay out a methodology for evaluating, assessing, and ultimately characterizing the issue, so that the impact of policy changes can be properly assessed. Even showing that well-known investigatory methods function adequately for a given problem is of value. Put another way, "you can't control what you can't measure" (or in this case, characterize more generally).
sixothree 2y ago
This report gives us a framework for legislation. In no way does it "tell us what we already know".
fallingknife 2y ago
Nothing because the government wants to do this surveillance itself but can't by law. The availability of corporate surveillance means the government can use it too, so it benefits them.
barryrandall 2y ago
What do I want them to do? Pass a constitutional amendment that bans government invasions of privacy, legislation that extends those rights to individuals' interactions with private parties, legislation that funds the enforcement of those protections, legislation that creates civil penalties for violating those rights, and funds courts that hear those cases. What do I expect them to do? Limit super-invasive spying to domestically-controlled companies.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

llamaimperative 2y ago

There are plenty of people who "know" things that are actually wrong. This investigation is an important first step for the government to feel confident they know what's going on before exercising state power, which is, you know, a good thing. Vibes- or rumor-based exercise of state power is ill advised. The Biden FTC has been quite aggressive against all sorts of anti-consumer practices throughout the economy which tend to follow these types of reports. I suspect action is coming relatively soon.

khana 2y ago

[dead]

janalsncm 2y ago

A lot of people wonder why we study and document things that are already “common knowledge”. This is true of scientific studies as well. What a waste of money, right? The answer is, until you actually do the work you don’t actually know. Scientists and government officials can’t cite common knowledge. And even if you were right about the conclusion, the details matter. The amount matters. The mechanisms matter.

SoftTalker 2y ago
> government officials can’t cite common knowledge Government officials can cite whatever they want, including stuff they pulled out of their ass, as long as they have the votes.
iterance 2y ago
High-quality studies also lay out a methodology for evaluating, assessing, and ultimately characterizing the issue, so that the impact of policy changes can be properly assessed. Even showing that well-known investigatory methods function adequately for a given problem is of value. Put another way, "you can't control what you can't measure" (or in this case, characterize more generally).

sixothree 2y ago

This report gives us a framework for legislation. In no way does it "tell us what we already know".

fallingknife 2y ago

Nothing because the government wants to do this surveillance itself but can't by law. The availability of corporate surveillance means the government can use it too, so it benefits them.

barryrandall 2y ago

What do I want them to do? Pass a constitutional amendment that bans government invasions of privacy, legislation that extends those rights to individuals' interactions with private parties, legislation that funds the enforcement of those protections, legislation that creates civil penalties for violating those rights, and funds courts that hear those cases. What do I expect them to do? Limit super-invasive spying to domestically-controlled companies.