Palantir will give a lot of fake positives and overload remainder of ICE forces who will be chasing ghosts.
Heck even Google believes that I am a woman and is constantly showing me women hair and clothes products. And they are doing targeted data mining for ads business for decades.
ICE doesn't give a shit about false positives. They are already using a facial recognition app as definitive proof of someone's immigration status, even when they are shown documentation such as a birth certificate. They don't care if it's accurate, they just want targets.
That would make the agents culpable. If they're just doing what the AI told them to do, then who can hold them responsible? After all, the AI is smarter than all humans combined, who can argue with its wisdom?
Expect "The AI told me to do it" to be tried as a defense at Nuremburg 2.0
This is the correct question to be asking, but maybe not for the reason you thought. AI is an incredible tool for shifting liability and manufacturing plausible deniability, which appears to be exceedingly useful for authoritarian regimes around the world. Not just externally (i.e. in media), but internally as well (Ender’s Game: shoot the guy the computer says is bad, never give mind to whether or why he’s bad).
Take a look at your sibling comments, that AI is a mistake is a flawed viewpoint. It’s very much doing what it’s intended to do: shift liability and create plausible deniability.
I mean that's in Europe, but it is called Citizen ID - State issued card automatically when you are 15, looking like drivers license, renewed every 10 years.
If ICE were as unpopular as you say with conservatives, they would not have been defending both murders with such passion. I guess this is the difference in listening to the 'streets' vs a carefully sampled poll.
Looking at net support is an odd way to look at the data.
Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%. That means 1 out of every 2 Americans support it. That seems quite high to me.
Many Americans understand "Trump's immigration policy" to be "deport murderers, rapists, and drug dealers".
But what's happening now is that Trump pulled a bait and switch -- when he said "deport criminals" the crime he had in mind was that of being an undocumented immigrant, whereas everyone else had in their head when he said criminal he meant "murders, rapist, gangbanger, drug dealers". Not "people going through the asylum process and my roofer".
For a lot of people, they just want to see immigrants come in the "right way", but for the Trump administration they don't want to see any immigrants who are not white.
So when people say they support Trump's immigration policies, you have to really dissect what they mean by that. Which policies? The ones he campaigned on, the ones they wish he campaigned on and are ascribing to him regardless, or the ones actually being implemented?
> Looking at net support is an odd way to look at the data.
Its a lot more useful as a single number to look at than either “support” or “oppose”, because those don't tell you how much of the excluded amount is on the other side versus undecided.
> Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%
Overall immigration policy is a different and broader question, but, no, its not.
39% support, with 53% opposed; support hasn't been at or above 45% (the floor of your claimed 50% ± 5%) since the beginning of last summer.
Isn't this the same problem of many people who feel otherwise not participating in polls? The conservative subreddit shows a very different story. I'm sure the asktrumpsupporters sub does also.
I think modern polling is deeply flawed, but taking the sentiments of a particular subreddit as more representative of an entire political party than the polling is probably taking it too far.
The polling is frequently wrong. I believe the subreddits (not just one) are mostly real people giving their views. They are not just random subs, they are the subs for those particular ideologies. They also match the opinions media pundits put out, and match various supporters appearing in other media, like the Jubilee Surrounded videos. On the balance of evidence available, it seems most people in that party is more for than against what has been going on.
We've gotten to a dark place where someone doesn't just slip into an echo chamber by accident but actively chooses to believe that selectively sampled data sources are actually superior to sources that attempt randomization.
There is no sane reason to think the subreddits nor Jubilee videos are actually representative, and certainly no reason to believe they are representative in contradiction to virtually every poll conducted in the past 12 months.
"Prior polls are wrong" is a lazy man's way out. Polls actually have been way less wrong than people commonly meme about, and again there's no sane reason to say "sources that attempt randomization were wrong so therefore sources that actively bias their samples are probably better."
Both of those are heavily astroturfed / propagandized. Historically they often did reflect the views of supporters, because the subreddits mirror the talking points presented across all other conservative media - and most conservatives adopt their beliefs from those media sources. Thus, even though the voices you read on the subreddits are mostly "bots", they typically mirror the sentiment you'll hear from the actual people.
However, this is not guaranteed to always be the case - and regardless, the voices on r/conservative and r/asktrumpsupporters are not necessarily actual real people's voices, even if they usually say similar things as real people.
Yes, I recognize this has echoes of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but it's just an accurate description of the system.
> Both of those are heavily astroturfed / propagandized.
I'm pretty skeptical of that, honestly. I think if we apply Occam, it's just that there are enough people that do feel like that. Look at some of the Jubilee 'Surrounded' videos to see that such people are not in short supply.
There's not much financial motive in building up or buying accounts just for them to say they agree with what's going on - it doesn't help anyone in power right now. Anecdotal, but the users I check the profile history off seem legitimate posting across several different subs also.
> I'm pretty skeptical of that, honestly. I think if we apply Occam, it's just that there are enough people that do feel like that.
After following that sub fairly closely in the days after big scandals on the GOP side since Jan 6th, I can personally vouch for r/conservative being incredibly controlled and propagandized.
Not only do the mods delete many even slightly critical comments by their own flaired conservative users pretty quickly, almost any thread about a scandal or gaffe that's not filled with one-sided commentary is also deleted after a few days. The last big example I remember was the tariff stuff over the last year - there were always at least three or more posts about any new announcement, and the ones with the most negative comments were gone after a few days.
I can't show you archived data since those tools stopped working due to AI scraping, but I implore you to at least follow a few negative threads and to take regular snapshots. I've never seen any other internet community that's modded so strictly without admitting to it.
You can try an experiment for yourself. If you have a Reddit account, comment something on one of these subreddits that doesn't toe the party line. Wait less than 24 hours until your comment is removed and you are banned.
The conservative subreddit isn't fake as such, it's just incredibly tightly curated and so not in any way representative. Number of deleted comments is a better barometer than tone of remaining comments, if still not a great one, because you're simply not going to see any significant number straying too far from the party line.
You can certainly prioritize evidence as you like, but I explained why when balancing all available evidence, it seems supporters are fine with what is happening. They say as much unambiguously in multiple places across multiple venues. I'll take that over a poll anyday.
Surely there are enough supporters to populate the message boards on which supporters congregate with messages of support. No doubt about that.
If you think that gives you a read on the overall attitude, then unfortunately there's nothing I can say to help you.
It is literally mathematically nonsensical to look at the numerator, put no effort into knowing the denominator, and then claim to have a sense for the ratio between them. It's shocking to see someone explicitly claim they can do this lmao.
Given that one half of this country openly states that it is OK to not provide medical care to anyone from the other political side [1] [2], I would not trust any polls. Many people would be unwilling to draw a target on their families' backs just to help some pollster.
The point is presumably to make an example of a few, and use that to deter future people from posting information about ICE officers, not to send everyone who oppose ICE to the gulags.
Not YET. But ICE's budget is now larger the military budget for most countries. They are spending billions developing sophisticated AI-powered surveillance tech infrastructure and building detention centers (aka, concentration camps).
When they run out of immigrants to deport, they aren't going to just sell all that crap on ebay. They're going to go looking for more targets.
Arbitrary cruelty is the point. There isn't a coherent rationale. You're going to the gulags if the subhuman pig in the mask says you are. You'll be lucky (?) if they don't just decide to execute you in the street. This is the reality on the ground right now. In a blue state in America.
You're using exactly the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric that the administration is using in order to justify their violence and inhumane treatment of immigrants. You might need to think about that.
Other than the quoted snippet, everything you said may be true. Still, don't dehumanize your opponents.
I fear they've burned the credibility they'd need for that to work. If they claim to have made an example of a critic, how do we know that was actually a critic – and by extension, how do we know that not critiquing them will keep us safe?
That's when loyalty becomes the new bar. Polarization makes everyone not supporting the regime an enemy. I don't see USA fully going down that slope, so I'm confused about what is the final goal. Maybe it's just a temporary whim of the executive and his backers.