Wild exaggeration.

Here's an example just recently:

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts...

It's a constant and ongoing public concern.

pessimizer an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Over some Democratic party campaign wedge issue like illegal immigrants (who I guess are the only people who should be protected from constant surveillance, so special.) They will immediately not care about this at all when they are in charge of ICE, or whatever they rename it. Democrats love Flock (i.e. get paid by Flock.)

▲

close04 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Public discourse is a speed bump not an immovable barrier. The proof is in the state of things advancing in the same direction for the past few decades at least. Speed bumps are still valuable but not if you want to block the road. So public discourse alone isn’t the silver bullet you make them out to be.

▲

petcat 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's quite a defeatist perspective. You're saying that because we can't fix or prevent everything, then we should choose not to fix or prevent anything?

Many US states do not impose government surveillance or have age verification laws.

But the point I was mainly making was regarding the comment equating USA and the West to Russia or China. Go to one of those countries and we'll see how long you can openly complain about government surveillance before you end up in jail.

	▲	miroljub 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They all go in the same direction. Russia and China are closer to the end-goal, but the USA and the West now run faster, so there's a good chance they all reach the end goal at the same time.
	▲	qsera 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> You're saying that because we can't fix or prevent everything, then we should choose not to fix or prevent anything? No, it is just being realist. Public discourse is like wind. It comes and goes. But incentive based motivators are like gravity. It is a constant force, and sooner or later, it will win. To make change, incentives should change.
	▲	close04 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm not telling you what can or cannot be done. I'm telling you that the example you chose to counter GP's "wild exaggeration" statement, was in itself an exaggeration. It doesn't make the point you think it makes. I'm telling you that if you want to change something, continuing to only do the thing that proved ineffective in the past won't cut it. > Go to one of those countries and we'll see how long you can openly complain about government surveillance before you end up in jail. Those people never had it any other way so their complaints are either "the usual", or come from people who can cause real trouble. Those people get silenced almost everywhere in the world. Want to know what Germany does if you "insult" a politician? In Russia people openly complain about the government all the time, as long as this doesn't cause real trouble no one bats an eye. Russia has nowhere near the capability of the US and China to surveil people anyway. And in China most people don't openly complain because their lives are orders of magnitude better than just a few decades ago, many see it as the price for the better life. "I'm not that bad yet" is never a strong argument. 50 years ago the press was "impeaching" presidents. Today presidents are "impeaching" the press. See the progress? It accelerates.
	▲	johnnyanmac 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Main point is that the public discourse doesn't matter. These lawmakers are jamming what they want because they know Twitter is a rant box with no action.. If we want change we need proper coalitions at the worst and a working government at best. Yelling on social media is useless.