Skip to content

The Astronomer CEO's Coldplay Concert Fiasco Is Emblematic of Our Social Media Surveillance Dystopia

Technology
34 20 533
  • I don't really want to be filmed everywhere, especially when it's later on broadcasted to the entire world. I want to be able to do stupid stuff without other people knowing.

    This type of camera use at concerts or stadiums is decades.
    Although I agree with you, the biggest concern are things like Nest cameras that film random people walking on the street. Or general government surveillance.

    In the UK, some guy got arrested because he refused to show his face on a street surveillance camera on principle.

  • So they were identified by a government agency or an entity acting within that scope?

    dystopian surveillance state

    There I fixed it.

    Go to reddit and stay there if you want to debase yourself with that obtuse nonsense. Otherwise grow up.

  • dystopian surveillance state

    There I fixed it.

    Go to reddit and stay there if you want to debase yourself with that obtuse nonsense. Otherwise grow up.

    And blocked. Have a nice day.

  • So this article went over everyone's head??? The surveillance apparatus is the that they were able to be identified immediately. You guys prove the authors point. It's so normalized it doesn't seem out of place. Not only that they were blasted around the world just as fast.

    The post we're in right now showing their names and faces. The comment section we're in. This is part of the mass surveillance machine.

    The witch hunt is self evident but I suppose I need to be blunt. It's because they're deemed worthy of your scorn. So you accept the dystopian surveillance state because in this instance it has served your purpose.

    Crazy times.

    The main problem I see here is that people still don't seem to understand what "public" means.

    That applies to doing shit in public, but also posting shit publically.

    If you do something in the open, expect that people will see it.

  • And blocked. Have a nice day.

    He was right actually. Like 100%.

  • The main problem I see here is that people still don't seem to understand what "public" means.

    That applies to doing shit in public, but also posting shit publically.

    If you do something in the open, expect that people will see it.

    See it, sure. But as a society we used to have an expectation of anonymity, for better or worse.

    If there was a video of you dancing funny in public, maybe your friends would recognize you, but the whole world wouldn't know your identity and remember it forever.

    Shit, my workplace couldn't even identify the people who walked in the front door and stole stuff and walked out. The police could see their faces clearly in the security footage, but they weren't from around here and no one knew who they were.

    Society used to be like that.

  • See it, sure. But as a society we used to have an expectation of anonymity, for better or worse.

    If there was a video of you dancing funny in public, maybe your friends would recognize you, but the whole world wouldn't know your identity and remember it forever.

    Shit, my workplace couldn't even identify the people who walked in the front door and stole stuff and walked out. The police could see their faces clearly in the security footage, but they weren't from around here and no one knew who they were.

    Society used to be like that.

    See it, sure. But as a society we used to have an expectation of anonymity, for better or worse.

    That's the case if you are some unimportant rando, yes.

    But these two people we are talking about are very public figures due to their jobs, and they are compensated very well for this. As a public figure you can't have the expectation of anonymity. That just comes with the territory.

    Every time JK Rowling lets out an anti-trans fart, the whole internet is up in arms. When my transphobe uncle does the same, nobody cares. Because one of them is a public figure and the other one is not.

  • The main problem I see here is that people still don't seem to understand what "public" means.

    That applies to doing shit in public, but also posting shit publically.

    If you do something in the open, expect that people will see it.

    You should be able to enjoy a concert without being put on display.

    I don’t want my picture taken when I’m high as fuck and make out with strangers while partying.

  • So they were identified by a government agency or an entity acting within that scope?

    Surveillance capitalism knows more about you than government agencies.

  • See it, sure. But as a society we used to have an expectation of anonymity, for better or worse.

    That's the case if you are some unimportant rando, yes.

    But these two people we are talking about are very public figures due to their jobs, and they are compensated very well for this. As a public figure you can't have the expectation of anonymity. That just comes with the territory.

    Every time JK Rowling lets out an anti-trans fart, the whole internet is up in arms. When my transphobe uncle does the same, nobody cares. Because one of them is a public figure and the other one is not.

    If you would read the article, you would understand the point you're missing.

    No one recognized them because they were public figures. In this case it's not clear how they were recognized, but in the general sense, it is clear that social media will gleefully dox randos using technology like facial recognition. Attractive security guards, people dancing, etc. Just yesterday, someone took a picture of me at the pool just for walking with messy hair.

    The point the article is making is that anybody can be made a public figure now, because of technology.

  • If you would read the article, you would understand the point you're missing.

    No one recognized them because they were public figures. In this case it's not clear how they were recognized, but in the general sense, it is clear that social media will gleefully dox randos using technology like facial recognition. Attractive security guards, people dancing, etc. Just yesterday, someone took a picture of me at the pool just for walking with messy hair.

    The point the article is making is that anybody can be made a public figure now, because of technology.

    I have read the article, and I got your point before, and I still think that it's totally moot and besides the point.

    If they had been two total randos, say Max the car repair man cheating with Mandy the receptionist, then nobody would have even tried to recognize them. Not with social media, not with facial recognition not with anything else.

    And even if Peter, the coworker of Max and Mandy would have recognized them, he'd maybe have told their partners, or he might have made fun of them at work, but that's it. Because these people don't matter.

    To get back to your example: Somebody took a picture of you. Ok. Now what? Did that picture go viral on social media? Did that picture make it into international news? No. Because you don't matter.

    And you said it yourself:

    Shit, my workplace couldn't even identify the people who walked in the front door and stole stuff and walked out. The police could see their faces clearly in the security footage, but they weren't from around here and no one knew who they were.

  • So this article went over everyone's head??? The surveillance apparatus is the that they were able to be identified immediately. You guys prove the authors point. It's so normalized it doesn't seem out of place. Not only that they were blasted around the world just as fast.

    The post we're in right now showing their names and faces. The comment section we're in. This is part of the mass surveillance machine.

    The witch hunt is self evident but I suppose I need to be blunt. It's because they're deemed worthy of your scorn. So you accept the dystopian surveillance state because in this instance it has served your purpose.

    Crazy times.

    Lol you really think a CEO, of a billion dollar company no less, being recognized on camera is "emblematic" of anything.

    Don't pretend they are like us.

    Yes surveillance capitalism is ruining the society, but this is not it. Surprising bad take from 404media.

  • Surveillance capitalism knows more about you than government agencies.

    Facebook proved that well enough, the courts are supposed to be the remedy to that though.

  • Lol you really think a CEO, of a billion dollar company no less, being recognized on camera is "emblematic" of anything.

    Don't pretend they are like us.

    Yes surveillance capitalism is ruining the society, but this is not it. Surprising bad take from 404media.

    They not like us

  • This post did not contain any content.

    lol they not like us

    He got caught dipping his pen in company ink, I've seen it happen to staff lower on the totem pole.

    Its exactly what needed to happen. Its company policy fairly enforced, because it never is for the C suite.

  • It’s up to us as voters to elect governments that do not abuse surveillance technology.

    Surveillance technology is only feedback.

    There's also the regulator which uses that feedback. It's means of regulation are bots, properly formed news, law policies, and raw action. Probably even targeted murders.

    That system together affects whom "we as voters" elect. Because we are too many to organize, while for regulation our numbers and diversity are actually favorable, to treat us all as one object.

    Which means that electoral democracy is dead. Direct democracy with nationwide mandatory participation and rotational sortitioned filling of state roles requiring a working individual (like conscription where you can't refuse or it's a process requiring some proof of good reasons) may work.

    To increase as much as possible the technical complexity of influencing a society like an object.

    One can also (with reservations and limitations and very careful design) look at the Soviet system (one that really functioned in early 20s and late 80s).

    The key is nationwide participation. Electing someone else to represent you is just too risky with such crowd control means as available today.

    While the technology can be made public-controlled in the widest sense, so that not only a certain JD Vance could see where you are at every moment, but that you could see where he is as well. All state surveillance should be public. And there should be no state secrets.

    Swiss direct democracy is a better example than Soviet system.

  • Swiss direct democracy is a better example than Soviet system.

    Switzerland is small. Adapting its system for a bigger nation blindly might result in something like Turkey.

    But I've just refreshed my idea of its system and it's similar to what I'm describing, yes.

    The main difference is actually that Soviet system had a few levels of councils, the lower level electing the next, while in Swiss system there are three levels all elected directly.

    We know for sure that Stalin abused that property to gain power. And one can argue that Yeltsin did the same before dismantling it.

  • I have read the article, and I got your point before, and I still think that it's totally moot and besides the point.

    If they had been two total randos, say Max the car repair man cheating with Mandy the receptionist, then nobody would have even tried to recognize them. Not with social media, not with facial recognition not with anything else.

    And even if Peter, the coworker of Max and Mandy would have recognized them, he'd maybe have told their partners, or he might have made fun of them at work, but that's it. Because these people don't matter.

    To get back to your example: Somebody took a picture of you. Ok. Now what? Did that picture go viral on social media? Did that picture make it into international news? No. Because you don't matter.

    And you said it yourself:

    Shit, my workplace couldn't even identify the people who walked in the front door and stole stuff and walked out. The police could see their faces clearly in the security footage, but they weren't from around here and no one knew who they were.

    They could have identified me, that's the point.

    We couldn't identify the criminals because that example was before facial recognition.

    You read the article but you still don't get it.

  • 243 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    "Sorry, we've all looked through those files a lot but no one has had time to alphabetize them yet!"
  • AI Gnosis

    Technology technology
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Swollen battery

    Technology technology
    9
    2
    48 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    B
    It's ripe and ready to be juiced.
  • 105 Stimmen
    63 Beiträge
    221 Aufrufe
    S
    Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though. Sure, if you start with the assumption that things like property and wealth can truly be owned. I personally think 60-70% tax is stealing under that assumption, and that inheritance (and gifts) should be treated like any other income. But I'm starting from a different assumption that property is leased from society generally, and you only really own the value you create personally. When you die, there is no longer any legitimate owner so it must be redistributed. I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, and that doesn't work if kids can just ride their parents' coattails. There will always be some of that with parents using their connections to help their kids get ahead, but inheriting a fortune completely kills any need to actually compete to succeed. If we want a meritocratic society, we need to kill as much nepotism as we can. This article makes similar claims but from a little different perspective. Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. Agreed, but without the "thrive" bit. I think we need something like universal basic income to ensure everyone is above the poverty line, but that should be the extent of it. Along with this, I think we should eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what's fair. However, this is completely separate from inheritance. I don't think the government should use that money for any purpose, it should strictly be redistributed if the person who died didn't choose any charities or whatever to donate to. The government should also give it to any survivors first if there's no will, up to the limit. I don't see it as a tax because the government isn't taking that money, it's merely facilitating redistribution. passing companies down Passing down shares would be subject to the same inheritance rules.
  • Your smartphone is a parasite, according to evolution

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 92 Stimmen
    35 Beiträge
    364 Aufrufe
    D
    Same as American companies. Send you targeted ads and news articles to influence your world view as a form of new soft power.
  • The largest cryptocurrency money-laundering ring

    Technology technology
    26
    326 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    336 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    It has their name and where it came from so. Yes? That's not what I asked. Are you expecting people to direct link everything even when it is already atributed? I mean is that really too much to expect of people? To simply copy the link where they found the information and post it along with where they shared it?
  • 586 Stimmen
    77 Beiträge
    861 Aufrufe
    F
    When a Lemmy instance owner gets a legal request from a foreign countries government to take down content, after they’re done shitting themselves they’ll take the content down or they’ll have to implement a country wide block on that country, along with not allowing any citizens of that country to use their instance no matter where they are located. Block me, I don’t care. You’re just proving that you can’t handle the truth and being challenged with it.