Anonymous #1 22h

Omg aren’t you scared to post this in the surveillance state 😱😱

-13

Anonymous blue__wave 22h

Surveillance state is when can’t post meme

31

Anonymous #1 22h

Literally yes internet surveillance is part of real surveillance states like in China for example.

-12

Anonymous blue__wave 22h

Pretty sure Chinese people have memes…

34

Anonymous #1 22h

100% sure a bunch got arrested for making said memes

8

Anonymous #1 22h

I never said they have 0 memes is that rlly what you got from what I just said?

-7

Anonymous #2 21h

I got this one off the meme black market

5

Anonymous #3 20h

idk why we're comparing them. they function differently, and impact different groups differently

5

Anonymous #5 18h

Wait can you elaborate on this 😭

5

Anonymous #6 18h

Ever notice how schools are prototyping the surveillance state out of “protecting the youth”. Teachers unions are the enemy alongside the business majors profiting off of the destruction of civil liberties

1

Anonymous #5 18h

No, can you be more concrete about how this is happening in practice?

1

Anonymous #6 18h

School computers literally track everything and use the cameras without consent

1

Anonymous #5 18h

School computers tracking all activity isn’t new, but turning on the camera without consent is genuinely concerning yikes

1

Anonymous #5 18h

oh wtf 😭 idk wym by “every vermin lawyer” lmao but this is genuinely insane. I wish the settlement amount was higher but it’s not like school districts have that much money

1

Anonymous #6 18h

Lawyers literally destroyed civil liberties because “minors need to be oppressed”. And honestly we do not bully mock trial mfers enough for being fascists

1

Anonymous #5 18h

…who do you think represented the plaintiffs in this case lmfao

3

Anonymous #6 18h

And who works for a system where government abuse is normalized for a demographic deemed “immature” yet “needs protection”?

1

Anonymous #5 18h

Power-hungry IT administrators

1

Anonymous #6 18h

IT ppl are the OG libertarians. Education majors demanded surveillance using cheating/war on drugs/“muh low salary” as politically correct excuses. Mock trial vermin demand their own enslavement and corporatocracy

0

Anonymous #5 18h

The article you sent literally shows that IT admins were responsible for the procurement, installation, activation, use, and concealment of this lmfao. Are they “just following orders”?

0

Anonymous #6 18h

Yes - because education majors called for the surveillance to spy on “muh anti-social behavior”

0

Anonymous blue__wave 17h

no you said surveillance state is when you can’t post memes. If chinese people can’t post memes online they consequently can’t have online memes.

1

Anonymous #7 16h

It’s quite well-known that memes referencing Tiananmen Square or comparisons to Winnie the Pooh will be taken down quickly. Just like we have “grape” and “seggs” because of TikTok, Chinese social media has “grass mud horse” (similar to “fuck your mom”), except the latter is because of the government, not because of a private company’s decisions

6

Anonymous #7 16h

Yes you can’t post or there’s some restrictions or chilling on memes critical of the state. Ig you get semantics points bc I said literally idk what this convo is lol.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 16h

You guys are talking more about censorship. Most states can keep tabs on their people either online or on camera or whatever. I’m not even saying China isn’t a surveillance state, but y’all’s definition of surveillance state seems to be :China [noun]

1

Anonymous #1 16h

Surveillance is meaningless so there’s no consequence to privacy or other rights.for example there’s nothing wrong with being “ surveilled” in public. Censorship is part of what makes the surveillance wrong.

1

Anonymous #1 16h

Fair point, I should’ve focused on surveillance. The primary examples come from Xinjiang. They even seem to have an algorithm to classify Uyghurs based on facial features and other factors

1

Anonymous blue__wave 16h

No, I don’t think the government should be using private corporations to surveil me because (for some reason) that lets them sidestep most of the privacy protections they’re supposed to uphold

1

Anonymous #6 13h

You’re just talking about third party doctrine. If you want more consumer privacy protections I would agree with that but to say we’re in a surveillance state bc people willing give tech companies a lot of their info is dramatic.

2

Anonymous blue__wave 12h

there’s different levels of surveillance states yk. the US controls every social media platform americans are on (which is why the tiktok buyout was such a big deal). There is active censorship and botting and propaganda. All of our data is collected, nothing is private anymore. And in an authoritarian state, that can all be weaponized against you.

1

Anonymous #8 12h

Name a concrete example of something.

6

Anonymous #8 12h

It’s more productive to talk about actual policy or consequences rather just equating thing to China.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 11h

No, I’m saying we’re in a surveillance state because the government is bypassing for requirements for warrants by going to data brokers instead. I apologize for not being clear. This is well-documented https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole

8

Anonymous #6 11h

If it's information you willingly gave the company, that's not really a loophole in my opinion.

0

Anonymous #2 11h

Unless we have different definitions of “willingly”, almost no one willingly gives their information to a data broker. The data broker has a contract with the company I’m interacting with, and until very recently, I had no right to ask which companies it was being shared with, for what purpose, or to object to that sale or sharing. Often times, this is not made clear to anyone, even when they read the privacy policy For example:

3

Anonymous #6 11h

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-takes-action-against-general-motors-sharing-drivers-precise-location-driving-behavior-data

4

Anonymous #6 5h

Your giving an example where customers didn’t give consent and the company is being investigated for it. If you willing give your information to a third party that third party can give that information to other people. Maybe you can argue that shouldn’t be legal or it should be regulated, but this isn’t a good example. A surveillance state is when the FTC investigates a company for giving out customer info without their consent? Wouldn’t this be the exact opposite of a surveillance state lol?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

when companies sell data en masse to a government using a legal loophole to obtain data it is legally barred from collecting, that is *one aspect* of it being a surveillance state, yes. whether or not there was an investigation is irrelevant - the data was collected en masse and used by the government for surveillance via dragnet data collection. whether or not it's illegal isn't the issue either. being il/legal isn't what makes it a surveillance state can you define surveillance state for us?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

because to me, a government undermining FISA 702s limitations on domestic data collection by buying it up from seedy companies that collect data in malicious and difficult to avoid ways is itself a massive indicator of a surveillance state, and that's just one issue

1

Anonymous #4 1h

Why would an investigation be irrelevant if we’re talking about actions of the state? Where in your article did it talk about the GM information being used by the state? I would say a surveillance state broadly is when a state uses surveillance to infringe on some right without due process.

1

Anonymous #4 1h

Sure you can say some of these things are issues but all of you guys are using the most dramatic morally loaded language to talk about the limits of third party doctrine. I feel like having a convo about that would be more productive. Instead we’re equating the U.S. to a one party state with the largest surveillance systems of any country that it uses to crack down on dissenting speech.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

what article? i never sent an article. i'm not the person you were talking to before

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

why would an investigation be relevant? whether or not the company is investigated for data collection/sharing is irrelevant to whether or not the state is a surveillance state. all that data could've been legally obtained by the company itself. the issue is that the government is sidestepping the legal prohibition on bulk data collection (part of FISA 702), which infringes on your right to due process by obtaining communication and other data without a warrant

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

they are literally undermining federal limits on warrantless searches of private citizens. that's part of a surveillance state. this also meets your definition

4

Anonymous #4 1h

Ok by bad I got the blues mixed up. Regardless you’re referencing an article where there was no government buy up and the government actively investigated the possible abuse I would say that’s extremely relevant.

1

Anonymous #4 1h

Bc it’s contradicts the actions of what a surveillance state would do. Someone presented this as evidence of a surveillance state and it isn’t, in fact it shows some form of consumer protections.

0

Anonymous #4 1h

Again you’re just talking about third party doctrine, which has case law behind it. You’re making seem like the government found some secret loophole that no one ever thought of. I would even agree that needs to be updated with the current state of technology and internet. The moral loading is just extremely cringe.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1h

how do you contend with the fact that what i just described perfectly fits your definition of a surveillance state? sidestepping limitation on both domestic and bulk data collection by buying it from companies - infringing on citizens rights to due process by allowing warrantless searches on citizens

3

Anonymous #4 1h

Bc there is due process it’s third party doctrine, a doctrine with case law behind it. You’re consensually giving your data to someone else. I don’t think it’s an ideal policy but to compare it China is insane.

1

Anonymous #4 59m

Ok how about this, what state would you not consider a surveillance state?

1

Anonymous #4 55m

Bc you don’t need a warrant. If I give you safe and you then own the safe. Then you find drugs and say “look blue wave had drugs” you don’t need a warrant for that. That’s the doctrine they’re using you can say that shouldn’t be what they use for data collection or it should be updated. Regardless there was a real court process to come to this legal conclusion that rooted in people’s right. I don’t think it’s ideal policy but I do think it’s a good faith interpretation.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 38m

you don't know what due process is if you think that's due process i never compared anything to china, and i actually have another comment where i say i don't get why people compare then because they function differently and impact groups differently. straw man i don't have a list of surveillance states, but id bet most developed nations are to varying degrees

1

Anonymous blue__wave 38m

if i give you a safe with my private information, and you hand that to a fraudster, the fraudster is still a fraudster; just as the surveillance state is still a surveillance state

1

Anonymous #4 37m

i really need you to read my safe comment thoroughly to understand what i'm getting at

1

Anonymous blue__wave 34m

"it's not a surveillance state if they use legal loopholes to collect data they legally can't collect themselves because you gave that data to a third party with little to no transparency or control over the collection, use and sale of that data"

4

Anonymous #4 19m

It sounds you are saying it’s the same as China morally it just has other differences, which I think is kinda a meaningless statement. You can clarify your position if you want though.

0

Anonymous #4 17m

Do you think your definition is kinda broad if every developed nation is a surveillance state? That seems like a very morally heavy term to give every state without clarifying you think every state fits under that definition. To an average person a surveillance state sounds like an exceptional thing.

0

Anonymous #4 17m

Who’s the fraudster in this analogy? What does that even mean lol?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 16m

dawg i have not used the word china at all. i am talking about the united states and the us alone. i am not making comparisons, i am making critiques. period. if you cannot understand what i'm saying that's a failure on your part and a comprehension issue, not a comms issue on my part. nice try though

1

Anonymous blue__wave 15m

well i think i have used the word china but only because you keep straw manning about china. i am arguing that the us is a surveillance state. you're the one comparing/contrasting the two

3

Anonymous #4 13m

What’s a legal loophole to you? This is very well established doctrine lol. Idk you can reframe what I said to make it sound scary or bad I don’t think that’s an honest engagement with what I’m saying.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 10m

you can call the loophole a doctrine if you want. it's a means of avoiding legal obligations/restrictions. they need a warrant to collect that data, but can avoid that by buying it if the law changed and explicitly and aggressively barred this, would your position change? if it was absolutely, unquestionably illegal to collect this data from brokers, would you then say it's a surveillance state?

1

Anonymous #4 10m

You literally admitted you’ve mention China in this post. The entire context of this post is me being critical of the comparison. You’re acting like I’m just shoehorning China into the conversation. If you don’t want to talk about it that’s fine ig, it’s kinda weird considering the point of the post.

1

Anonymous #4 9m

What have a straw manned you about China? You keep repeating this. Yes bc if every state is a surveillance state I think it’s kinda a pointless term so you have to ground it out in a comparison.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6m

ok. can you answer my question now?

1

Anonymous #4 6m

But it’s not a legal obligation are you saying the government is breaking the law every time they buy data? Yes if the government broke the law and another part of the government didn’t hold it accountable I would probably say we’re closer.

1

Anonymous #4 Just now

It’s just depends on the context.

1