zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. happym+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-07-28 06:30:07
Because the media always paints other countries in certain lights, as it helps them build a narrative for their own governments?

> complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government

I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.

replies(1): >>MaxPoc+e1
2. MaxPoc+e1[view] [source] 2025-07-28 06:41:22
>>happym+(OP)
Authoritarian CCTV cameras in Shenzhen Vs democratic CCTV cameras in London
replies(1): >>happym+yn
◧◩
3. happym+yn[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 10:21:12
>>MaxPoc+e1
Heavily monitored London, freedom America.

https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-...

Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.

replies(2): >>Saline+0s >>Aurorn+nG
◧◩◪
4. Saline+0s[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 11:02:03
>>happym+yn
Paris and Seoul are much denser than London. A better measure is the cameras/habitant or the % of coverage. London has 100% coverage for instance.
replies(2): >>happym+uw >>lavezz+qg2
◧◩◪◨
5. happym+uw[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 11:37:30
>>Saline+0s
> better measure is the cameras/habitant

How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.

replies(1): >>Saline+KR1
◧◩◪
6. Aurorn+nG[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 13:01:03
>>happym+yn
> Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km

You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square.

This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.

replies(1): >>happym+GK
◧◩◪◨
7. happym+GK[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 13:29:55
>>Aurorn+nG
I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case.

UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this.

> Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse.

Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.

◧◩◪◨⬒
8. Saline+KR1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 20:09:23
>>happym+uw
Large parts if London are just forests, unlike Paris which is one of the densest places on earth. So of course density of population affects camera per sqm: you tend to place more cameras where there are people. This is also why I said that coverage is even a better measure: "what are the odds that I'm being filmed, now".
◧◩◪◨
9. lavezz+qg2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-28 22:29:30
>>Saline+0s
> London has 100% coverage for instance.

What?

> Large parts if London are just forests

What?

[go to top]