3 ms·

I think they are screaming too late. For more than 10 years was known enough that the US government was mass collecting information about everything they could

I think they are screaming too late. For more than 10 years was known enough that the US government was mass collecting information about everything they could on internet, the Snowden’s revelations was just a milestone on the current state of that back then, and as nothing happened, it continued. Now we have over that AIs and probably a government openly willing to use that against you, but that was always a possibility all this time. The future is open, the records are forever. And what we did all this time? Just put in photos, videos and text what can be used against us under some future policy, and shared it with them. There is a point where we deserve the consequences. And yes, even of this very message.

llamaimperative 2y ago
None of this is necessary to have an authoritarian government. Just some lawsuits and government inquiries. Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. The two issues are not actually that intertwined.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. No you can't. It's only a matter of time.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I’m not advocating for it, so don’t strawman me. I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today. I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!” Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No. Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope! As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      I didn't say you advocated for anything. I literally quoted you and said the quoted statement was straight up wrong.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        “It’s only a matter of time” -> not relevant to this conversation about what’s happening right now then, right? Then we’re in agreement.
        potato3732842 2y ago
        No, we're not in agreement. Only caring about "the current situation" is exactly how we got here. We've been vesting power in the executive for decades. A little here for the environment. A little there because drugs. A little more because terrorists. And so on and so on for every single issue. And every step of the way shortsighted people have said it's not a slippery slope and made all manner of excuses because their specific interest was being served. And now we're reaping what decades of shortsighted people like you have sown. The way we structure our government needs to be architected on a longer timeline than "the current crisis". And BTW that's one hell of an edit on the prior comment and the whole schtick about rubber hoses vs technology misses the point about technology being a force multiplier which has huge implications for political will. The fact that the NSA can read everyone's emails cheaper than the Stasi can read everyone's literal mail just means the expenditure is smaller awareness is smaller and the endeavor costs less political capital. Dangerous things (like reading everyone's email) need to be expensive.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Likewise, having a standing army is dangerous. How much airtime do we want to give that topic on this here thread about current distortion of our democracy through totally distinct mechanisms? Not sure who you're arguing against on the propriety or danger of NSA's capability, but it ain't me.
    - 2y ago
intended 2y ago
The creation of technology didn’t create the people who would misuse it. I’ll give an example to illustrate how this defeats the point of the submission. Submission “we’re seeing chilling effects because students dont want to take the risk of having a record of discussion about government.” Comment: “We’ve known things are getting worse, and this technology in the wrong hands would be harmful, we should have done something 10 years ago” Here we can substitute anything from the invention of letters to computers to AI, as the technology in question.
- gmuslera 2y ago
  Not using a seat belt doesn't cause car crashes. But giving enough time they may happen, and when they do, they could be far more severe, even lethal, because you didn't had the seat belt in the first place.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

llamaimperative 2y ago

None of this is necessary to have an authoritarian government. Just some lawsuits and government inquiries. Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. The two issues are not actually that intertwined.

potato3732842 2y ago
>Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. No you can't. It's only a matter of time.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I’m not advocating for it, so don’t strawman me. I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today. I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!” Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No. Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope! As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I didn't say you advocated for anything. I literally quoted you and said the quoted statement was straight up wrong.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      “It’s only a matter of time” -> not relevant to this conversation about what’s happening right now then, right? Then we’re in agreement.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        No, we're not in agreement. Only caring about "the current situation" is exactly how we got here. We've been vesting power in the executive for decades. A little here for the environment. A little there because drugs. A little more because terrorists. And so on and so on for every single issue. And every step of the way shortsighted people have said it's not a slippery slope and made all manner of excuses because their specific interest was being served. And now we're reaping what decades of shortsighted people like you have sown. The way we structure our government needs to be architected on a longer timeline than "the current crisis". And BTW that's one hell of an edit on the prior comment and the whole schtick about rubber hoses vs technology misses the point about technology being a force multiplier which has huge implications for political will. The fact that the NSA can read everyone's emails cheaper than the Stasi can read everyone's literal mail just means the expenditure is smaller awareness is smaller and the endeavor costs less political capital. Dangerous things (like reading everyone's email) need to be expensive.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Likewise, having a standing army is dangerous. How much airtime do we want to give that topic on this here thread about current distortion of our democracy through totally distinct mechanisms? Not sure who you're arguing against on the propriety or danger of NSA's capability, but it ain't me.
  - 2y ago

intended 2y ago

The creation of technology didn’t create the people who would misuse it. I’ll give an example to illustrate how this defeats the point of the submission. Submission “we’re seeing chilling effects because students dont want to take the risk of having a record of discussion about government.” Comment: “We’ve known things are getting worse, and this technology in the wrong hands would be harmful, we should have done something 10 years ago” Here we can substitute anything from the invention of letters to computers to AI, as the technology in question.

gmuslera 2y ago
Not using a seat belt doesn't cause car crashes. But giving enough time they may happen, and when they do, they could be far more severe, even lethal, because you didn't had the seat belt in the first place.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]