It sounds like you're saying the parent shouldn't be critical of this practice because it is common, which obviously doesn't follow, but I could be interpreting your comment wrongly.
This article is deceptive. I'm not talking about the parent commenter; I'm talking about the 404 Media piece that pretends the Bandera city councilmember is seriously proposing to ban cell phones.
To be fair, the council member appears to be an idiot.
If not, he is leaning all the way into a false equivalence comparing a cell phone one has personal control over to a nationwide network of spy cams that no regular citizen controls.
He's using political rhetoric (ultra-common rhetoric among normies) that you disagree with. Neither category you propose fits for me, based on the limited information I have.
reductio ad absurdum is what I think you are referring to.
But again, that’s not what this is. Taking away all cell phones, which are a lot more useful than the camera function it shares with flock, is not an equivalent move.
The issue is people don’t want their town covered in cameras they don’t control and has been shown to be abused nationwide. How on earth is removing internet access to the populace even in the same ballpark?
This is a tantrum by someone who I suspect was set to gain financially by signing a contract with flock.