[fodkodrasz]

Reality shows otherwise. Take a look at Google and free-for-ads-and-surveillance everything. People are willing to make compromises on privacy for less important things than the change of them or their loved ones getting murdered, as mentioned as an example.

But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

ps: I'm not for a panopticon, enforcement needs to come with surveillance also, otherwise it will just be an anarcho-tyranny. So common in the developed world. And enforcement of law must also apply to companies, even (and especially) to vendors of the law-enforcement.

[preg_match]

The main problem with these arguments, which are common and we also see in a lot of free-market discussions, is that they assume that every person has perfect knowledge all the time. Including knowledge of changes that might have just occurred.

That's... an extremely difficult claim to make, and one that people largely make for free, unchallenged. I'll challenge it: most people have absolutely no idea what's going on.

When you sign a terms of service, do you read it in full? When you get what feels like a weekly email saying the TOS has changed, do you read it in full? And, to be clear, you auto-consent when the terms of service changes, they don't pretend you have to read it.

This is by design. It's not a coincidence the TOS is extremely long, extremely vague, and constantly changing. And, it doesn't matter anyway. There are no competitors. Because guess what - they have the same TOS. And the TOS doesn't mean anything, anyway. Because the majority of the rights they explain they can exercise in the TOS, they never do. So you can't even use that as a baseline for "what is this company doing".

So not only are people not knowledgeable in practice, but they also face many barriers, by design, to being knowledgeable. And, one further, they actually CAN'T be knowledge even if they dedicate their entire lives to it, because the knowledge does not exist and is not available.

People do not "want" the surveillance state. Rather, they submit to it, under lies, omissions, and asymmetric power. This includes me and you.

[SXX]

  > But back to Flock: public cameras are not 24/7 surveillance, as those don't surveil people at home.

Fortunatelly for that they can have Amazon partnership. It only got backlash because they been stupid enough to advertise it as superbowl ad.

And backlash its got is the real proof that people not protest against it only because they are not really aware of how bad it is.

[Gud]

People aren’t “making compromises” they are totally oblivious to the evil shit Google, Meta, etc is doing.

[red-iron-pine]

aye, the average joe has no idea wtf data mining is, or how its risky for them

my educated, medical professional in-laws have some vague idea about it but love their instagram and lose chasing the related trends. they have no real, direct understanding as to how this could impact their privacy, or how marketing works, or how propaganda is similar to marketing, etc.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

So the argument here is that people are too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated into being controlled, therefore it’s ok?

Sit someone down, a normal average person, and explain to them the actual implications and then do you think they will agree? Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

[lostlogin]

> Reality shows that when people actually understand what surveillance means they reject it wholeheartedly

They certainly say they do. Then back they go to Amazon, Facebook, Instagram et al.

[fodkodrasz]

No, they don't reject it. The realize they hate it, but make a compromise.. and use the free gmail, the ad ridden internet, etc., because they have no real alternatives. Rejecting surveillance capitalism is only realistic for the poorest and the richest. The average people must accept it.