I am intrigued by the header, and it seems like this has some good points. However, I'm struggling to parse this content. There's a full image in between almost every sentence. In most cases, I don't find the image adds significantly to the point of the preceding or following sentence, so it just looks like filler for colour.
I could put this into an AI but then what's the point of the article in the first place?
Beyond the stated changes the author believes are necessary for citizens to make: stop externalizing responsibility, stop going along with social norms that perpetuate surveillance capitalism, and indulging in anger as a substitue for action; the other actionable takeaway to me is: "Unless we have real representation in our government. Companies don’t have vested interest in protecting privacy."
I interpret this as meaning citizens need to support advocacy groups that lobby elected officials to create/improve regulations that would limit the ability to implement surveillance capitalism. This aligns with the author's own words: "Responding to National or Regional calls for safety: Calls to support initiatives, or bills to increase security at the expense of freedom, make us less safe. Trading security for freedom reduces our ability to act."
Indeed. Vital to the solution yes, but if it was all that was needed then the surveillance systems would have been dismantled and prevented each time enough people became aware. The fact that we are here now is it’s own evidence
Most people don't care enough about this. They know that their phones are profiling them and delivering ads based on what they do, what they search for, or where they've been. They think it's maybe a little creepy but not really a big deal. Advertising has always been psychologically manipulative, so that part is nothing new. It's just a bit more targeted now.
Awareness is the first step, but very far from the final one. (I am sure the author knows this, but worth reiterating.)
Surveillance Capitalism is fueled by large institutions with vast depths of wealth and implemented by world-class supercomputers and algorithms. Fighting surveillance capitalism by individual action is like fighting climate change by drinking through paper straws and bringing totebags to the supermarket.
It's interesting, but it sounds more like a political/societal theory rather than actual events or state of the society. It would be much more interesting and largely shareable if it contained more documented facts rather than generic affirmations.
"neither party is willing to stop it"??? Oh please eff all the way off with this "both sides" crap.... one party is POWERLESS to stop it, the party in power is willingly complicit in the shift towards fascism. There's a MASSIVE difference. Implying the Democrats are somehow willingly allowing this is almost propagandist.
Pretty sure a lot of people would need a fainting couch if they learned that they might need to avoid restaurants that only have QR-code menus. We seem to have an incredibly-infantilized stock of people these days, which is why I don't know that awareness will really help much.
Awareness is helpfull, but becoming habitualy non partisipatory by turning java script, cookies, and DOM storage off is also good. flip the script, and default to a system where seeing or going further requires real work, like copy and pasteing a url, and opening it in an alternative browser that may, possibly, show the paywall.
or for realy tedious stuff, install an up to date "all in" browser for a specific task, and then un install it, which for me is always a shock, to see what a jiggling mess of horror the "real" net looks like, which unfortunatly a small but significantly dedicated bunch of seriously fucked up people are emulating on the street, for which I am bieng hired to physicaly deter and disuade with strategicly placed metal screens, guards,gates and barriors.
So in my world the whole adversurvailence aparatus is comming full circle, providing
leads through an internet I dont see, to deal with the results that everybody has no option not too.
13 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 30.2 ms ] threadI could put this into an AI but then what's the point of the article in the first place?
I interpret this as meaning citizens need to support advocacy groups that lobby elected officials to create/improve regulations that would limit the ability to implement surveillance capitalism. This aligns with the author's own words: "Responding to National or Regional calls for safety: Calls to support initiatives, or bills to increase security at the expense of freedom, make us less safe. Trading security for freedom reduces our ability to act."
So, I disagree.
Most people don't care enough about this. They know that their phones are profiling them and delivering ads based on what they do, what they search for, or where they've been. They think it's maybe a little creepy but not really a big deal. Advertising has always been psychologically manipulative, so that part is nothing new. It's just a bit more targeted now.
Surveillance Capitalism is fueled by large institutions with vast depths of wealth and implemented by world-class supercomputers and algorithms. Fighting surveillance capitalism by individual action is like fighting climate change by drinking through paper straws and bringing totebags to the supermarket.