zlacker

The people want to be surveilled. This is their choice, which has been revealed billions of times since the dawn of the modern social media era. As a result I have zero pity, and the public can reap what it has sown.

Privacy advocates, cypherpunks, hackers, et cetera have been sounding the alarm bells since Room 641A, if not earlier. Not only has the Internet at large failed to heed these warnings, some of those "conscientious objectors" who refused to willingly submit their information to these systems of surveillance capitalism were actively demonized and hunted.

After all, if you are not willingly signing up for these services, social media, and voluntarily forfeiting your data to these systems, then there is something wrong with you and you should probably just sign up for that Meta account already.

You are the ones who have kept these systems running by voluntarily feeding them your time, attention, and/or data. Now the beast has reached maturity and it is too late to do anything about it.

>>ryandv+(OP)
*The people are too poor and disconnected to dissent.

Everything comes down to the desperation to survive in a world where abundant (ABUNDANT) food, shelter, and clothing still must be "earned" (so say our elites).

>>ryandv+(OP)
By your logic people also want to get into car wrecks, develop cancer in old age, get food poisoning, etc.

Just because there's risks with something or side effects with something doesn't mean people want the side effects

>>malfis+33
I would agree in cases where the desired effect is distinct from the side effect.

However, for social media in particular, the desired effect is the side effect, which is the surveillance.