141–150 of 373 posts
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
Smashing cameras is enjoyable whereas building movement for legislation is laborious. It will be easier to negotiate for legislation as well if the economic risk of installation increases because of vandalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the person who said it, and I explained what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm speaking from the perspective of an American worker. I feel that the relationship between capital and labor in the United States remains linked to slavery, even 150+ years after its formal abolition here.
I'm referring to the phrase Quarrelsome used ("[it's a choice] to feel like a slave"), not your original usage. My criticism of Quarrelsome is that, in my opinion, "It's your choice to be a slave" means "resist"; while "it's your choice to feel like a slave" means "accept it". I felt you were being too charitable to them.
That was my initial reaction too, I was just choosing to be charitable
Just sharing my regular reminder that Flock is a YC company. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety This organization that built itself on top of the “hacker ethos” is now happy to profit from building the surveillance state
were they not always this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless, I do agree with the commentor. Effective or not, violence, to me, is always the wrong answer. Calling the "destruction of property" violence though—I might take issue with that.
I assume this comment means you strongly oppose every part of the American Revolution?
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
Smashing cameras is enjoyable whereas building movement for legislation is laborious. It will be easier to negotiate for legislation as well if the economic risk of installation increases because of vandalism.
This is all Internet logic. It's fun to talk about destroying cameras as a vector for public policy, ergo, by the First Law of Message Boards, that must be a viable strategy. Reader, it is not. Nobody's going to blink at these costs, but residents who supported or were on the fence about the cameras are now negatively polarized against doing anything about them.
The cringe-ier thing here is the clear message being sent by many commentators, incl. the author of this post, that nobody's ever thought of breaking surveillance cameras before. Y'all, this is literally a meme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be enough energy for both?
The irony is destruction of private property will only justify the very surveillance one is trying to avoid. Would you agree ring cameras should be destroyed too? The police can use their footage. In practice they are similar to flock.
Eventually toll cameras and a consortium of private businesses will have this tech and then game over. Better to use this energy and legislate the behavior you want. Never let the enemy decide the terms.
Do you think the same people smashing the cameras have the skills to legislate? Or even to organize and lead a movement? They are very different skill sets.
Counter point - I live in a major-ish city in which our police force isn't as strong as the surrounding suburbs so I don't mind a few extra eyes on the streets. My kids like to explore the neighborhood and I like a little extra peace of mind.