> Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but
... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?
... but why do you then go on making all pro-surveillance state arguments ?
That’s not the surveillance state. That’s just me as a private entity snitching.
MIT is not a public university. It’s private property not much different than my house. You’re generally not supposed to be in most of their buildings unless you’re a student, faculty, or staff, just like you’re not supposed to be at my house unless I invite you over.
I will concede, though, that some lines are blurred. E.g., MIT has a police force.
The other point of my original comment is really just that it seems like the most prestigious colleges have faculty and students that complain about stuff that’s really typical at less prestigious universities.
Why not?
> That’s just me as a private entity snitching.
... to the state. You are surveilling for the state.
Domestic surveillance took off with McCarthyism.
Aside from that, the lines are very blurred these days, as the state often ends up gaining regular, easy access to systems such as this.
(Regardless, it's a bit in bad faith to bring up surveillance-state scenarios, and then, when called on it, claim that it doesn't matter because it technically doesn't apply to the organization at hand. Even though it does in the ways that matter.)
I do concede what you’re saying about its police force, and that’s a fair angle.
The obvious answer is to leave the organization, but ultimately one shouldn't have to end their employment in order to be free of undue/unjust AI surveillance.
These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance.
That is in direct contradiction to the claim "I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever".
So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it.
What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ?
As a general rule: to engage charitably with someone you believe the things they say they believe, at face value and attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
Quite literally this:
> attempt to understand how they could come to believe those things.
Is it possible that you are not reading my comment charitably ?
How is that supposed to be a serious question? They brought up real concerns. The "why" is obviously that they had real questions--that's the purpose of all questions. So they asked them,and then you implied that, if a person was truly not pro-surveillance, they would not ask such questions. Yet they had those questions. So you think they should have pretended to not be confused? Not asked those questions? Pretended like everything made sense? What was the goal here?
You didn't engage with the content of their questions at all. You just called out the act of questioning. You implied that by asking at all they were on the wrong 'side'.
> You implied
I think you are implying that I implied.
Best to end this here, probably.
However, I did follow up with a direct reply before making the comment you're replying to, so... I literally did "engage with their questions".