zlacker

>>benwer+(OP)
> Such data may be useful, it says, to “identify every person who attended a protest or rally based on their smartphone location or ad-tracking records.”

"May"? This is exactly how the January 6th protestors were identified.

>>roarch+E3
I don't doubt that this technique was used for the people who stormed the capital on January 6th, but I would hesitate to describe many of them as "protestors".

>>some_f+j4
Actually, let's do call them protesters. If you want to get universal agreement on the need for privacy regulations, you need to present it a way that does not immediately turn away your intended audience.

When both sides really agree on something, it's amazing how fast it gets done. Which, of course, is why there are people trying to hard to keep both sides from ever agreeing.

>>rootus+qc
On one hand I know that this is true. We have to guard against special pleading that allows oppression of those we disagree with because that inevitably leads to our own oppression sooner or later.

On the other hand I understand what the post you're replying to is saying, even if it's not said extremely well. There is an enormous online narrative with a lot of money and power behind it trying to normalize the most violent and anti-democratic parts of the right wing of American politics and using that to drive views, clicks, and votes.

I'm normally not someone to clutch pearls and will be the first one to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans are just decent enough people trying to figure out how to keep fed, healthy, and safe. But the tendency toward fascism in the human animal is something we need vigilance against, as demonstrated over and over again in human history.

The people who attempted to violently attack the seat of democratically elected power in this country were not protestors. There were protestors outside, but the people who crossed the line to breaking and entering, assault, and terrorism were not protestors.