A society cannot "simply choose" to reject corporate and government mass surveillance.
There was no public vote I'm aware of to decide whether to install cameras and sensors on every street and highway. Shall we vote to take them down now?
Before 2013, only lunatics were concerned with mass surveillance. Look how far we've come. Now the media gives lip service to "privacy advocates". And the result of all this "privacy advocacy" is a giant popup window reminding you that you must submit to tracking if you wish to engage. Engineering consent. Maybe we can meet up in the metaverse to organize a revolution.
>A society cannot "simply choose" to reject corporate and government mass surveillance.
There is absolutely choice. Both are are supported by continuous choices choices people make every do. The choices are different between government and corporate surveillance.
On the government surveillance side, people can choose to vote for politicians that support their privacy and lobby their representatives. They can also start public propositions, make donations, or run for office.
On the corporate side, people can choose to refuse to use products, websites, or stores that sell their data. People can take actions to anonymize themselves.
People make these choices every day. Often people choose not to support privacy because they value something else more, e.g. convenience, money, time, safety, ect.
None of these sound like choices that will result in a significant increase in privacy unless people, en masse, collectively decide to do it with a hive mind that doesn't exist. People are technically "choosing" the status quo, but doing it from a very limited set of options.
What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.
I never said the choices were easy or cheap, or that they could be made on an individual basis.
On the contrary, many of these are collective choices made by society, especially when it comes to the law.
>What you're doing is like saying citizens of North Korea are "choosing" to live under the Kim regime because they could technically try to overthrow him if they wanted to. You have to consider the costs of doing so and the likelihood it would succeed.
I actually think this is the most insightful and humane way to think about those who live in NK under the Kim regime. They are born into an awful situation where their choices are very limited. They can collaborate, resist, or try to flee and all have unattractive consequences. I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing any of the above given such poor options. The plight of these people is defined by their lack of attractive choices, for example, they can not choose to emigrate from NK, or vote in free elections.
Similarly, this framing showcases the bravery and optimism when people choose to do make hard choices, like to be a resistor in NK, despite the tremendous cost and low chance of success.
To me, saying people have no choice is dehumanizes those both those who suffer or secede based on their choices.
Before 2013, only lunatics were concerned with mass surveillance. Look how far we've come. Now the media gives lip service to "privacy advocates". And the result of all this "privacy advocacy" is a giant popup window reminding you that you must submit to tracking if you wish to engage. Engineering consent. Maybe we can meet up in the metaverse to organize a revolution.