[smacktoward]

A little snitch that people pay for the privilege of carrying around!

That's the real thing Orwell missed -- not that surveillance would increase, but that the surveilled would so enthusiastically cooperate in their own surveillance.

[branchless]

This is where 1984 and Brave New World diverge. In 1984 people obeyed because they were afraid. In Brave New World, which is closer to reality, people fell into the arms of the big stage. They wanted it.

That is why Brave New World is far more chilling.

[jacquesm]

Another good read on the same subject: This Perfect Day by Ira Levin.

[branchless]

Thanks. Allow me to return the favour:

www.amazon.com/We-Yevgeny-Zamyatin/dp/0140185852

[jacquesm]

Thank you!

[caskance]

Oh no, people are wanting and getting things you don't approve of. How terrible.

[coldpie]

Um, no, people aren't paying to be surveilled. They're paying to have an internet-enabled entertainment and information device in their pocket. Any surveillance is a side-effect, and one I think most people would not agree to if it doesn't provide any benefit to themselves.

[caskance]

The whole reason companies as big as Facebook and Google can exist is because this surveillance provides huge benefits.

[Zirro]

In theory they could charge money for their services instead and not capitalize on user data. I would pay them for this if I was given the option and already do so where possible, but it would seem that I am by no means representative.

[caskance]

You could not pay them enough for that. The mere presence of a pay to opt out feature devalues all the other data they collect on people who don't pay.

It's the number one law of inescapable advertising. The more people are willing to pay to avoid advertisement, the more lucrative advertising to them is.

[chopman]

Well people payed for their telescreens, rigth? I remember the lower class didn't have them, possibly because they couldn't afford them.

[drdeca]

Still had the cameras though.