> Could it instead be because when selecting candidates to vote for (for the minority that do vote, which is a separate problem), Americans have prioritized other issues?
Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.
> How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?
Those are PR stunts. From companies like FB that are on record founded by CIA, and having same investors as companies such Palantir, I'm sure bunch of data exchange is happening behind the curtains.
> By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?
Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling, how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?
> Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.
It means that they either don't care, or that they care about other issues more (foreign policy, economy, etc.). Even sticking to issues with technology, I am far more concerned about banning end-to-end encryption without key escrow than with legislation to ban wiretapping. The US government has a long history of doing illegal wiretapping anyway, so I think the better solution is for private companies and citizens to make it more difficult practically, not legally. Does that mean I don't care about privacy?
> Those are PR stunts.
Which is exactly my point. Why would they perform such stunts if the public at large didn't care about wiretapping, or if they mostly supported it?
> Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling
Thanks. That was a great rebuke to the way I personally insulted you and everyone else who has been a part of this conversation.
> how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?
That is definitely evidence that America's government was and is authoritarian in many aspects, which I wholeheartedly agree is the case. It is also evidence that the voting segments of the population for the past 20 years (and further) have a similar bent. However, my issue with the original post is that he made a blanket statement about Americans in general. I don't think it's a great thing that the majority of Americans don't vote, but as a result this can only possible suggest the attitudes of a minority of Americans. That is why I prefer to judge what the public thinks about an issue by a poll, not by elected officials, or by anecdotal evidence (mine or anyone else's).
Sure, so you basically admitted to his first point being right. That Americans don't care so much when it comes to their privacy.
> How about the fact that private companies are responding by changing their platforms to be more resistant to such data collection even under warrant, and publicizing the fact? Why do you think they are doing that, if not to appease the public?
Those are PR stunts. From companies like FB that are on record founded by CIA, and having same investors as companies such Palantir, I'm sure bunch of data exchange is happening behind the curtains.
> By who? You? And whether or not the government is authoritarian, how does that imply the people like it?
Unless you are really this dumb, or you just plain trolling, how about the last 20 years of America's political history, for a start?