3 ms·

Yes, they should be different. In almost all cases, they should be less. But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government, and flock's s

Yes, they should be different. In almost all cases, they should be less. But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government, and flock's services are not exclusively available to governments. Same goes for their competitors.

whimsicalism 14d ago
The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.
- Timon3 14d ago
  Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
- johnnyanmac 13d ago
  >The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. That is precisely the notion of the US constitution. If some random person chose to take down a flier criticizing the president, that is fair game (legally, or at least it defers to private policy). If a government agent did that, it verges on breaking the first amendment because we know that is a form of government suppression of speech. The first 10 amendments to the constitution pretty much all work to some extent of this logic. > I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will. Those are all pretty much state laws outside of taxation, not part of the Constitution. We could setup campaigns to restrict those powers anytime we want to, or to grant them to private citizens in some cases. Speech and surveillance fall under the constitution. Restricting/granting such power requires a much higher standard of process.

whimsicalism 14d ago

The government represents the public will of the people and has democratic legitimacy. The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will.

Timon3 14d ago
Due to the monopoly on violence, governments need additional more constraints in some areas. If your government dislikes you and they can track every step you take out in public, it becomes much easier for them to violate your rights without anyone stopping them. And because the government could fetch the same data from any company collecting it, companies too must be banned from doing so.
johnnyanmac 13d ago
>The notion that it should be more constrained than private actors seems absurd. That is precisely the notion of the US constitution. If some random person chose to take down a flier criticizing the president, that is fair game (legally, or at least it defers to private policy). If a government agent did that, it verges on breaking the first amendment because we know that is a form of government suppression of speech. The first 10 amendments to the constitution pretty much all work to some extent of this logic. > I'm okay with taxation, pulling people over for speeding, automated speeding enforcement, fining parents who don't send their kids to school, garnishing wages, etc. that would be unacceptable from a private actor who is not imbued with the public's will. Those are all pretty much state laws outside of taxation, not part of the Constitution. We could setup campaigns to restrict those powers anytime we want to, or to grant them to private citizens in some cases. Speech and surveillance fall under the constitution. Restricting/granting such power requires a much higher standard of process.