3 ms·

That has absolutely nothing to do w/a surveillance state. Let's pretend it was the 1880s and these two were executives at Standard Oil. They were seen cavorting

That has absolutely nothing to do w/a surveillance state. Let's pretend it was the 1880s and these two were executives at Standard Oil. They were seen cavorting at the opera together by someone who then tipped off the press and/or their company who then tipped off the press. It might have been big news the next day or the day after that. Frankly; this is exactly what happened here. Do you feel there was a 'surveillance state' in the 1880s? I don't.

singleshot_ 1y ago
In the 1880s they were missing: the long distance video camera; the real-time display on the Jumbotron; the ability of any concertgoer to snap a quick series of hires photos; the capability to select and edit the best photo; a globally interconnected system of social media platforms to which to post the resulting photos; and a 24 hour doomscrolling apparatus to put the photos in front of of every person in America six times a day for half a week. So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.
- jpc0 1y ago
  I’m going to reply here. These are effects of a connected society, I’m unsure on whether they are a net good socially but technologically and economically they have been a game changer. This has nothing to do with a surveillance state, it might enable it but it enables it in the same way any technology enables the ability to abuse said technology. The “state” didn’t publish or share the photos. The things you should be complaining about is the state passing laws to get arbitrary access to the cellphone location data of every single person at this event, and being able to link that data to an individual. That is a loss of anonymity that can be a vector to prosecution and you should fight about, and has nothing to do with the information. And yes and 5/13 eyes country can and will get that information if they so desire and will likely even share it amongst each other and the public would not need to be any wiser. If you are on the “state”’s radar they can absolutely track you to within a few meters across international borders. Technology enabled this, “the people” allowed it. A coldplay concert exposing an affair is unrelated.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - singleshot_ 1y ago
    > This has nothing to do with a surveillance state My claim: there was not a surveillance state in the 1880s, because it was impossible, because they were missing the entirety of the surveillance apparatus. Now that apparatus is omnipresent. Did you think I thought coldplay was the government? It's clear you understand what the surveillance state is and that we are in one -- you even suggest that I should fight it (I do). The coldplay event does have something to do with state surveillance: it relied on all the same infrastructure.

singleshot_ 1y ago

In the 1880s they were missing: the long distance video camera; the real-time display on the Jumbotron; the ability of any concertgoer to snap a quick series of hires photos; the capability to select and edit the best photo; a globally interconnected system of social media platforms to which to post the resulting photos; and a 24 hour doomscrolling apparatus to put the photos in front of of every person in America six times a day for half a week. So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.

jpc0 1y ago
I’m going to reply here. These are effects of a connected society, I’m unsure on whether they are a net good socially but technologically and economically they have been a game changer. This has nothing to do with a surveillance state, it might enable it but it enables it in the same way any technology enables the ability to abuse said technology. The “state” didn’t publish or share the photos. The things you should be complaining about is the state passing laws to get arbitrary access to the cellphone location data of every single person at this event, and being able to link that data to an individual. That is a loss of anonymity that can be a vector to prosecution and you should fight about, and has nothing to do with the information. And yes and 5/13 eyes country can and will get that information if they so desire and will likely even share it amongst each other and the public would not need to be any wiser. If you are on the “state”’s radar they can absolutely track you to within a few meters across international borders. Technology enabled this, “the people” allowed it. A coldplay concert exposing an affair is unrelated.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  > This has nothing to do with a surveillance state My claim: there was not a surveillance state in the 1880s, because it was impossible, because they were missing the entirety of the surveillance apparatus. Now that apparatus is omnipresent. Did you think I thought coldplay was the government? It's clear you understand what the surveillance state is and that we are in one -- you even suggest that I should fight it (I do). The coldplay event does have something to do with state surveillance: it relied on all the same infrastructure.