We can have democracy, or we can have a surveillance society, but we cannot have both.
-
@guigirl , they are two not necessarily inclusive concepts, one refers to society and the other to individual decisions. They only conflict when both are made mandatory or worse, if one is exclusive with respect to individual rights and freedoms.
-
I'll get even more basic (or base-ic in Marxist terms...sorry, bad joke) and suggest we can have democracy, or we can have a class-based economic system as inherently a class hierarchy enforces a fundamental structural power disparity which undermines the very concept of democracy.
Probably intuited to some degree by just about everyone, but just in case this claim needs some evidence:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdfThat being said, YES. Agreed with your specific claim as well of course! We're basically building ourselves a digital panopticon for when a more explicit form of this managerial feudalism needs to reinforce its control. Womp womp.
-
Nonsense. I think you wrongly equate surveillance with a totalitarian police state. Surveillance is just as much a way for the individual to control the state.
-
@knetrom said in We can have democracy, or we can have a surveillance society, but we cannot have both.:
you
Who?
I might be mistaken, but i tend to doubt that Dr. Zuboff will just happen along via this forum to notice your confident & expansive rebuttal of her detailed NYT article.
-
@guigirl As far as the title of the thread goes, are you familiar with the quote "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"?
-
The surveillance economy has nothing to do with a democratic society, but with a dictatorship that violates basic rights, even putting them at real risk due to leaks of sensitive data, as has already happened on several occasions, degrading people to mere articles of consumption. to enrich a few.
It is the maximum expression of a savage capitalism, practically an oxymoron of a democracy and a free and sovereign society.
A postman, who opens and reads our mail, before he delivers it to us, we would kick him down the stairs, but obviously too many people don't care that big oligopolies do exactly this on the internet.The first and essential thing in the network, what few do, is to really read the TOS and PP of a product, before using it and reject those who practice this surveillance always, only then, through the boycott, there is a possibility that these bad practices end, since we can expect little from legislators if the consumer himself does not wake up.
-
Surveillance is good for democracy as long as it's done right... Like we shouldn't worry about the poor & powerless 99% population, but instead focusing on the 1% that having too much wealth & power.
Basically the 99% can't do much harm even if they try, cuz $$$ is power. Without $$$ you are pretty much defenseless anyway, so let's not worry about some poor folks try to crashed the economy, ok?
Now, the super duper rich 1% is what we need to worry about. They can do great harm & causing a ton of pain & suffering all over the place while sipping on red wine in the underground basement, laughing at all the chaos they have conjured for fun & profit. Just look at US of A today, it's the result of poor surveillance on certain senile old man that allow him to wreak havocs all over the world when he is overdosed with ketones. LOL
-
@dude99 , I do not entirely agree, what is involved here is surveillance and espionage of the user for mere economic interests, because money is made with their personal data.
But even large companies depend on users to make profits, if the user don't enter in this game, they do not win. This is why an awareness of users is vital.
All social advances in history are based on this, not for the good will of the elites. As the saying goes, for exploitation you always need two, the exploiter and the one who allows himself to be exploited. -
Japanese proverb,γThe road to hell is paved with good intentions.γ.
So, the road to hell will not be paved.
Coz there is no good intentions. -
@catweazle You have misunderstood me, what I meant is surveillance should only applied to the 1%, super rich or powerful elites. It's to prevent or stop them from becoming the exploiter of the 99%.
Spiderman story teach us about "With great power comes great responsibility". But the problem is who holding these powerful elites responsible if they are not under constant surveillance? After all, it's easier & far more effective to monitor 1% of population instead the 99% to keep democracy really democracy.
2020 election is a good example of what would happened when credible surveillance are lacking, or compromised. We end up with a broken joker running the supposedly greatest country of 21st century into the ground. "Let's go Brandon" is now the new "Democracy chants"! LOL
Surveillance is just a tool, it's people that do evil deeds & harm others. Democracy without proper surveillance on the 1% elites is like everyone go to magic show willingly to be tricked & fooled for entertainment sake.