> not enough people speak about the normalization of the global surveillance machine, with Big Brother waiting around the corner
Everyone online is constantly talking about it. The truth is for most people it's fine.
Some folks are upset by it. But we by and large tend to just solve the problem at the smallest possible scale and then mollify ourselbves with whining. (I don't have social media. I don't have cameras in or around my home. I've worked on privacy legislation, but honestly nobody called their representatives and so nothing much happened. I no longer really bring up privacy issues when I speak to my electeds because I haven't seen evidence that nihilism has passed.)
> I'm not convinced that there is a point in attempting explaining it
That encapsulates my point.
I’ve worked on various pieces of legislation. All privately. A few made it into state and federal law. Broadly speaking, the ones that make it are the ones for which you can’t get their supporters to stop calling in on.
Privacy issues are notoriously shit at getting people to call their electeds on. The exception is when you can find traction outside tech, or if the target is directly a tech company.
Pretty much this. Nobody really actually cares. People will cite 1984 twenty million times, but since they're very disconnected from 3rd order effects of cross-company data brokerage, it doesn't really matter. I used to care about it before as well, but life became much easier once I took the "normie stand" on some of the issues.
Already here. Even without flexible but dodgy LLM automation, entities like marketing companies have had access to extreme amounts of user data for a long time.
