Earlier quoted context omitted.
One argument might be that /pol/ might arguably be able to radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting, but that's not as bad as a worldwide technological panopticon. (It's not really a dichotomy, of course.)
radicalise one or two people a year into a mass shooting You undermine your point with such obvious counterfactuals. This is not in any way an endorsement of the panopticon - which is exactly what /pol/ wants, just with itself in middle.
I don't know what you mean by that, sorry. Could you elaborate? I could read that as you either being charitable, or the opposite, towards /pol/.