4 ms·
No, you have talked past my actual comment, inserted your own "control dissent, remain in power" purpose for this instead of what I actually said in my comment.
by ineedasername 1y ago
No, you have talked past my actual comment, inserted your own "control dissent, remain in power" purpose for this instead of what I actually said in my comment.
I didn't claim "there are no problems that can be solved or goals achieved by means of mass/total surveillance". My topic was societal problems. The political dilemma "how do I retain power and curtail disagreement?" isn't in this category.
- sib 1y agoNo, you are talking past the point of the poster to whom you are replying. "The issue is that there is a place where this model ~is working. It's in China and Russia. The GFW, its Russian equivalent, and the national security laws binding all of their tech companies and public discussion do exactly these things in a way that has allowed their leadership to go unchallenged for decades now. The rest of the world isn't stupid or silly for suggesting these policies. They're following a proven effective model for the outcomes they are looking for. We do ourselves a disservice by acting like there is some inherent flaw in it." I stand by my comment that these technologies are doing exactly what they are intended for.