[jjaredsimpson]

Anonymity paired with speech is a new modern invention which didn't always exist. I don't this it is necessarily true that that kinds of speech is always for the ultimate good.

I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. It just seems like the modern version of sitting around a fire face to face and not being an asshole.

[gaius]

I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

A listening device in private homes is a genie that won't go back in its bottle. Are you willing to stand up and say, I trust every official, elected or otherwise, for the rest of my life, and the lives of any descendants I might have? Because you have just written a blank cheque that says exactly that.

[jjaredsimpson]

Bad governments will do bad things. I'm talking about how surveillance could be a useful tool in designing society as a counter to anonymous speech.

[gaius]

Anonymous speech in your own home?

[gurkendoktor]

Echo Show is not an anonymous broadcast platform. Using it to talk to friends is the modern version of doing it face to face; why do we suddenly need to have corporations or the government in the middle?

It is true that societies are experimenting with policing what people say online; Germany's attempts to combat hate speech and fake news come to mind. But that is (hopefully) different from punishing political dissent.

Do you honestly believe that it is better for society if people can't openly say "I disagree with removing presidential term limits"?

[zentiggr]

> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

If only that surveillance didn't open up avenues for exploitation, targeting, and suppression even more.

And I'm pretty sure we've got a little too much "cpmpliance" monitoring as we are right now... I'm ready for ALPRs, Stingrays, and a bunch of other LEO practices to get curtailed or even stopped outright.

[jjaredsimpson]

We can't only experiment with structures and tools that have only upside positive consequences.

The existence of a bad outcome is something to be avoided and guarded against, but I don't see why any possible tool which has a potential to be abused should be avoided.

[Slansitartop]

> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

Someone hasn't learned from history. The impulse you're feeling is tempting, but it never ends will.

[jjaredsimpson]

Surveillance isn't a good or evil unto itself. That's all I'm saying. It's a tool. I think it could be used to nudge behavior toward better global outcomes. I'm not wedded to the idea that everyone nearly everywhere should feel free saying anything free from consequences. Making speech accountable and attributable could be good.

[Slansitartop]

You're risking a large evil to solve a small one (people being "assholes" it appears).

Also, I think "anonymity paired with speech" is older than you think, and probably arose soon after the invention of the printing press. One notable instance of centuries-old anonymous speech are the Federalist Papers from 1787-88 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Authorsh...). Anonymous speech is also important for attacking oppressive regimes, even if it's more often used for far less lofty purposes.

Even good, trustworthy regimes go bad, and any surveillance system designed to be powerful enough to expose assholes can be perverted to serve oppressive ends. I'd rather those regimes have to build their surveillance from scratch rather than finding them ready-made.