4 ms·

Enforcing the laws that already exist via technological means instead of with personal prejudice, guns, and high speed pursuits is not fascism. Could it eventu

Enforcing the laws that already exist via technological means instead of with personal prejudice, guns, and high speed pursuits is not fascism. Could it eventually lead to fascism? Maybe, but so could enforcing the law with fast cars and guns if we aren't careful.

slt2021 2y ago
the government will always have a way have non-uniform enforcement. Elites and important people won't be enforced, while everyone else will get mass surveillance, loss of privacy, and techno-totalitarianism. Everything will be according to the laws, but you forgot who is writing and passing the laws and in whose interest. It is rarely the interest of the common folk.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  If I'm following your reasoning the argument seems to be: We should continue to do a bad job of enforcement for everyone because the laws are currently poorly enforced for some. I hope I'm just misreading you.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    nobody creates techno-fascist regime and invests hundreds of millions into surveillance infrastructure with the goal of enforcing speed tickets. It is just how it is being sold to public, because people are exposed to speeding drivers and would likely to approve of this measure. the problem does not match to the solution. if you look at China then you will see how the state can turn surveillance into oppression machine. if I can give you analogy, it is: when Scrum team struggles with delivery of software (delayed releases or buggy features), the Scrum master proposes to install CCTV cameras monitoring developers and screen capture software that will monitor every single your action with the goal of "improving performance of the team". sure the goal is noble, but you are just signing up to be under constant surveillance and be subject to whatever random punishments "The Algorithm" decides to throw at you
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      Everything you said is true. It could be abused. So could guns, and they already have been many times. I don't see why this thing is higher risk than that thing which is already allowed and common?

slt2021 2y ago

the government will always have a way have non-uniform enforcement. Elites and important people won't be enforced, while everyone else will get mass surveillance, loss of privacy, and techno-totalitarianism. Everything will be according to the laws, but you forgot who is writing and passing the laws and in whose interest. It is rarely the interest of the common folk.

stevenAthompson 2y ago
If I'm following your reasoning the argument seems to be: We should continue to do a bad job of enforcement for everyone because the laws are currently poorly enforced for some. I hope I'm just misreading you.
- slt2021 2y ago
  nobody creates techno-fascist regime and invests hundreds of millions into surveillance infrastructure with the goal of enforcing speed tickets. It is just how it is being sold to public, because people are exposed to speeding drivers and would likely to approve of this measure. the problem does not match to the solution. if you look at China then you will see how the state can turn surveillance into oppression machine. if I can give you analogy, it is: when Scrum team struggles with delivery of software (delayed releases or buggy features), the Scrum master proposes to install CCTV cameras monitoring developers and screen capture software that will monitor every single your action with the goal of "improving performance of the team". sure the goal is noble, but you are just signing up to be under constant surveillance and be subject to whatever random punishments "The Algorithm" decides to throw at you
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    Everything you said is true. It could be abused. So could guns, and they already have been many times. I don't see why this thing is higher risk than that thing which is already allowed and common?