| ▲ | idle_zealot 4 hours ago |
| It's not really about the individual people. They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. Our systems reward this behavior, so people do it. Surveillance is desired by the politically and economically powerful, and the contravening forces are weak and largely unorganized. Do we punish politicians or businesses for bad behavior? No? Then they'll engage in whatever behavior advances their interests. You could purge the world of every single person with evil intentions, and things would maybe get better for a little while, but without fundamentally changing the underlying rules of the system the same thing would play out again with different actors. |
|
| ▲ | foobar_______ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I like your take. I see this same thing playing out across many parts of the world. Dont hate the player hate the game It is about incentives and rules of the "game" that drive things. Sure, there are a few evil people but the vast majority of it is normal people responding to broken rules/incentives. Probably you and I both fall in this category :) |
| |
| ▲ | idle_zealot an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Dont hate the player hate the game To be clear, you can absolutely hate the player in addition to the game. That's for you to decide on a case-by-case basis. It's just important to recognize the broader context, especially if want to leave a positive impact. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | gorjusborg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's not really about the individual people. They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. Our systems reward this behavior, so people do it. Sorry, but people who do things they normally wouldn't because they are rewarded are not good people. They may be 'normal' in a distribution sense, but that doesn't mean the behavior becomes acceptable through it becoming commonplace. |
| |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The idea is compelling to consider though - I just saw a clip of comedian Romesh Ranganathan saying that a reason he hasn't cheated on his wife is lack of opportunity; another side of the same idea. Perhaps we would all be shit-head billionaires if given the opportunity. Most of us stay within our ethical lane, but then we don't have the money to afford a private island to abuse people on; we don't have to resist the temptation to incite an insurrection, or to shift gold markets by threatening a war ... perhaps we'd be tempted? | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Perhaps we would all be shit-head billionaires if given the opportunity. Statistically, if we were living in WWII Germany, most of us would not become freedom fighters. We'd keep our head down and support the regime. I think most people like to think of themselves as the exception but that's just "cope". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Surveillance is desired by the politically and economically powerful It's also desired by consumers. Parents love tracking their children, spouses track each other. Everyone wants to get a camera to catch porch pirates. Let's not pretend this is something being forced on us by some external evil. The evil is coming from inside the house. |
| |
| ▲ | blibble 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | this is entirely misses the point about exactly what makes it dangerous there's nothing bad with having a camera to spot porch pirates, as long as the data stays private it becomes problematic when everyone's hooked up to one central place (plus the "AI") same as the common talking points about CCTV, which always miss the distinction that there's minimal risk if it's only going to some video recorder in the back of the store it only becomes dangerous when every shop and house are fed back to one central location and the general public do not understand the difference | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > there's nothing bad with having a camera to spot porch pirates, as long as the data stays private It's still surveillance, and it's subject to subpoena so it can become government data as needed. The centralization makes things worse, sure, but the desire to monitor others often comes from individual actors. I can walk down my street and I will be recorded every step of the way by someone. The government didn't mandate this, each homeowner decided they "needed" a camera. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | blibble 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. have you seen the cult like statements they make you emit if you want to pass the interview? I had a colleague that interviewed there (and was accepted) over the space of that month he completely changed (and not for the better) |
