And blocked. Have a nice day.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Surveillance capitalism knows more about you than government agencies.

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.

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.

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.