LOL, well yes, but mostly for conservation purposes, I think.

Well, I put this as side to look closer and respond intelligently, and never really took that time.

Based on your response and the fact I’m not going to analyze your earlier post and my response more deeply, I’m going to acknowledge that I likely misinterpreted your intent given I agree with most of this particular comment’s apparent intent.

TL;DR;

I probably misunderstood you and apologize for the accusation.

It could be FOMO. Personally, I see value in keeping social media from children. The problem is I don’t believe this is all about that. As usual, it’s all about surveillance.

You did it when you spent a considerable amount of space explaining how sexual abuse is different because these abusers don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, so society needs a way to police them.

This was the bulk of your response to being against total public surveilance. You also didn’t explicitly agree or disagree with my assertion.

Instead you gave an explanation of the problems of criminality in society, asserted that something had to be done, and presented a huge cultural shift as the solution.

This neatly leaves the uncareful reader to potentially conclude that the surveilance is a reasonable approach to deal with an intractable social problem.

However, it really is not an intractable problem. it is a hypersensitivity to a horrific behavior that gets eyeballs in our truly fucked up profit-driven media system that thrives on manipulating our often morbid curiosity.

It is the constant airing of these events twenty four hours a day. If there are only 24 cases of such behavior on the planet in a single day, you will hear about it. That is 24 out of 9 billion people. Clearly evidence of the horrific cruelty of most humans, and particularly men, right? We have to do something to protect the innocent (insert women, children depending on the nature of the intractable problem).

Our history is littered with authoritarian movements making people believe the reality of a few bad actors is rampant cross society and is due to the “other”. They rally the weak willed foolish into destroying freedom, individuality, and life for their dear leaders’ enrichment, all while believing their moral certainty is unassailable.

Rationalizing the mass surveillance by claiming people rationalize their bad behavior (no way to really know that) is a very bad approach.

Rule of law is concrete. If one thinks they’re a good person while both taking someone else’s agency and breaking a felony-level law, that is on them. Taking away everybody else’s freedom and privacy because some people are narcissistic sociopaths is the kind of thing authoritarian narcissistic sociopaths do to get and maintain control.

We don’t have to instill in the minds of anyone anything other than basic human empathy and an understanding of the Golden Rule as a starting point of social interaction.

People forget that the surveilling party can be narcissistic sociopaths like anybody else. The difference is the scale of damage they can do.

This is global. My town is installing Flock cameras to “stop dangerous speeding and red-light running”. Never mind that it also is networked with every single other camera, reads license plates, and use AI to track people everywhere they go. There’s no danger, though. That’s just coincidence…

So your take-away from this article about a surveillance tool that seeks patterns of behavior and movement amongst hundreds of random people in a public space is “those privileged men will do anything to remain unaccountable” for… minding their business on in the tube, mall, or sidewalk? This is waaaayyy bigger than that level of bigotry, and in fact pandering to that very bigotry is exactly the tool used to get 51% of the population on board with implementing it without considering the very real consequences for them.

Use AI, learn the methods, tools, uses. Then keep working through the process yourself like you do now with AI as a partner who sometimes flakes out.

Remind yourself of the tenents of critical thinking regularly. Never just accept what AI tells you. seek proof behind the answers. Think through those answers to ensure you understand the logic behind them.

Fight complacency.

We can’t ignore this. We need to know how it is done if we want to earn salaries. Reality rarely makes a dent in the corporate herd until years later.

By then, careers are obliterated.

There are ways to protect your mind in the meantime.