Reality shows otherwise. Take a look at Google and free-for-ads-and-surveillance everything. People are willing to make compromises on privacy for less important things than the change of them or their loved ones getting murdered, as mentioned as an example.

But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

ps: I'm not for a panopticon, enforcement needs to come with surveillance also, otherwise it will just be an anarcho-tyranny. So common in the developed world. And enforcement of law must also apply to companies, even (and especially) to vendors of the law-enforcement.

▲ Gud 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People aren’t “making compromises” they are totally oblivious to the evil shit Google, Meta, etc is doing.

	▲	red-iron-pine 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		aye, the average joe has no idea wtf data mining is, or how its risky for them my educated, medical professional in-laws have some vague idea about it but love their instagram and lose chasing the related trends. they have no real, direct understanding as to how this could impact their privacy, or how marketing works, or how propaganda is similar to marketing, etc.

▲ SXX 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  > But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

Fortunatelly for that they can have Amazon partnership. It only got backlash because they been stupid enough to advertise it as superbowl ad.

And backlash its got is the real proof that people not protest against it only because they are not really aware of how bad it is.

▲ SOLAR_FIELDS 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So the argument here is that people are too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated into being controlled, therefore it’s ok?

Sit someone down, a normal average person, and explain to them the actual implications and then do you think they will agree? Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

▲

fodkodrasz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No, they don't reject it. The realize they hate it, but make a compromise.. and use the free gmail, the ad ridden internet, etc., because they have no real alternatives. Rejecting surveillance capitalism is only realistic for the poorest and the richest. The average people must accept it.

▲

lostlogin 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

They certainly say they do. Then back they go to Amazon, Facebook, Instagram et al.

	▲	tancop 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]