I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence.
This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered.
Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed.
It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.
The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals.
Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out.
Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out.
Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens.
Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.)
While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.
exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)
Obedient workers.
I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".
Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house.
Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently.
IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
9 replies →
To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence.
This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered.
Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed.
It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.
The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals.
Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out.
Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out.
Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens.
Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.)
While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.
exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)