Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet they still hold immense power to make our lives shittier. It is far easier to destroy a functioning system than it is to build one from the ground up
And yet the lives of everyone on this board has never been this comfortable in the past.
25 years of mass surveillance is enough
301–310 of 384 posts
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#302I think we have to face the fact that we cannot unring this bell. There will be holding actions against things like Flock but in the end they will fail, and at best we will have a loosening of the laws that Flock is being used to enforce and more draconian enforcement of the laws that remain. Like many on this site I'm in violent agreement with Schneier and have been ever since "security theater" entered the lexicon.…
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the parent is implying that we sit uncomfortably at home, silently, rather than uncomfortably marching through the streets, demanding. Yet, I say that while uncomfortably sitting in my home, typing on a screen
Mass demonstrations are common and frequent, more than ever. The thing is that these are mild pressures at best. What came from Occupy Wallstreet? The George Floyd protests? The No Kings marches? Anti-ICE demonstrations? They're not nothing and we should continue to have them and participate in them, but we have to recognize them as what they are: background radiation. On their own, they don't affect change or bring…
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, nothing above them. No power. That's the point. In a couple years Trump will be gone and he'll be kowtowing to others and so on. There is no group in charge. No one is in charge.
If there's no power then why did so many line up to bring gifts and kiss the ring of a certain vindictive, convicted felon turned President?
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the real world it's hard enough to get 5 people on the same page about anything. The idea that dozens/hundreds of people with billions of dollars who are in business against each other in many cases are secretly colluding with any effectiveness is a joke. If they were, zuckerberg, larry and sergey would have been squashed in the 90's/00's by the elite of the time. Sam Altman would have been crushed years ago. Obam…
How many billionaires attended Biden's inauguration or donated to Biden's projects? How many for Trump 2?
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, I don't get this. If they're niche irrelevant issues that affect ~nobody, why not just concede them? Because there's about 1% of people who are trans in the US [1] and most other populations, on top of that come a further about 1.7% people who are somewhere on the intersex spectrum [2]. Democrats aren't willing to throw literally millions of people under the bus. Republicans aren't just willing to cast them a…
Bostock affirmed core civil rights to transgender people in housing, employment, etc. The fights now are about other things (not "rights") and as such, are much more unpopular. In fact, a majority of people, even on the right, support the core rights affirmed by Bostock.
A majority of people support wage hikes [1], anti-trust laws [2], higher taxes for the rich [3], at least a general responsibility of the government for healthcare insurance [4] and even a full or barely restricted right to abortions of pregnancies [5].
But neither of this gets done despite bipartisan support, because Republican megadonors and their networks heavily keep the GOP in line. And for trans people, it's the same. The anti-trans rhetoric in the GOP gets pushed primarily by Evangelical influence groups, the rest of the GOP does not care, and neither do the voters.
[1] https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice...
[2] https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/47798-most-americans-oppos...
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/19/most-amer...
[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-amer...
[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#307Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#308Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the trans acceptance movement's main problems comes, as is often the case in politics, from some of its most militant and passionate activists. To put it simply, those extreme activists overreached and annoyed people. That's not the fault of trans people in general, but it explains some of the backlash and the focus on niche cases. Basically, the activists I'm talking about overreached by: - Pushing for speech…
“Militant” trans activists? How is just using someone’s pronouns “speech control”? It’s no different than using a name. If trans people tell you who they are, just believe them, it’s not that hard. There’s nothing mythical about the ongoing trans genocide. Genocides don’t just happen in gas chambers. https://translegislation.com/ I am not going to say much more here because I’m fairly certain none of this will get th…
Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough
#310At this stage I'd settle for echelon era surveillance and consider it a win... Ad tech/tiktok has proven its possible to deduce what people are think at scale from subtle signals, now sifting info at scale is possible thanks to LLMs and a large portion of everyone's online history is likely to become vulnerable to store now decrypt later attacks. Get rid of cash, force identity verification for every online service,…
No need to decrypt https, the other end of your connection does that and hands the info over to governments