No it isn't. Plenty of other things are, but not that one.

Yeah, people mostly seem to enjoy those crowd cams. If it’s emblematic of anything it would be something about attention-seeking behavior.

Yeah I agree.

Had this couple just not freaked out, it wouldn’t have gotten as much traction. Perhaps even the person who took the video and posted it may not have if it was just a “normal” reaction.

I mean, the guy is a piece of shit. And she is too if she’s knowingly having a relationship with a married person, presumably without the consent of his wife who she probably knows.

But this particular thing I don’t think is emblematic of anything other than the FO after the FA.

Lmfao no it’s not. It’s emblematic of CEOs being a category of people that correlate strongly with NPD and psycho/sociopathy. And it’s also emblematic of having a 0/10 poker face. It wouldn’t have gone viral if he had just stopped grabbing her tit (because on the Jumbotron) and doing a shy little chuckle together and keeping their shit together.

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.

Well then don’t do stupid stuff in public. This idiot could have been busted just as easily by somebody with a mobile phone and a social media following.

same. but that ship has sailed, forever.

or even if the dude was just not draped all over the lady in a public arena with tens of thousand of other people.

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.

That’s literally the point of the article?

The schismogenesis in the comments and downvotes here is wild: “dystopia is good when it hurts scumbags”—um, no, both can be bad??

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

So this is what all this "kiss cam at Coldplay concert" is about. Pretty dull stuff.

One thing to note with facial recognition and security cameras is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Another thing is that there are legitimate uses for extensive surveillance (catching spies, assasins and collaborators when your country is being invaded). While this is a somewhat extreme example, there are legitimate use cases outside of war time too.

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

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.

So you accept the dystopian surveillance state because in this instance it has served your purpose.

Divide et impera.