[ethanbond]

Sure you could which is why your society should have strong protections for content of speech. Technology should not and will not be the limiting factor on enforcement of laws, the laws and the constraints we place on them are.

[dealuromanet]

I don't trust the Party to care about protecting speech. Or to steward this technology properly. Or to be honest about what they're doing with the hardware. What the Party says publicly and what it does internally are two different things.

What are you going to do if they abuse the power? Protest and try to raise awareness? They'll just bankrupt the entire group of protestors for being too loud.

[ethanbond]

If you want your concerns to be taken seriously, I think I’d steer clear of using terms like “the Party.”

It just doesn’t seem worth it to try to have a serious conversation (and no it’s not because The Party is conspiring to dismiss you).

[dealuromanet]

Do you prefer the Cabinet? Anyway if all you have are qualms about the allusions, then that’s just the same as saying you don’t like what I said because it makes you uncomfortable. It doesn’t invalidate what I said. Notice how you ignored a legitimate question to gripe over allusions and words.

[ethanbond]

I don’t know, are you talking about the Cabinet? And no, it has to do with imprecision and lack of seriousness. For example I never would’ve guessed that “the Party” was meant to refer to “the Cabinet.”

So your claim is that in the US, where there are strong protections for content of speech, the Secretary of Defense, Transportation Sec, Secretary of Interior, etc, will bankrupt protestors?

Seems like a laughable claim but I’m interested to see your evidence for it.