Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study (2016)

> Participants who shared the “nothing to hide” belief, those who tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions. “The fact that the 'nothing to hide' individuals experience a significant chilling effect speaks to how online privacy is much bigger than the mere lawfulness of one's actions. It's about a fundamental human right to have control over one's self-presentation and image, in private, and now, in search histories and metadata,” she said.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/node/54994

From a quantum perspective… observing someone obviously changes that person.

From an entrapment perspective, any average Joe can be lead down any road one wishes with enough persistence.

It becomes really scary to me when it's a mass surveillance + unwarranted searches + automated censorship.

I think AI tools could really boost the "automated censorship" part of the equation.

For example the Limburger. I had a story about serious corruption within the justice department. But they wouldn’t print this unless they had three independent sources they said. No matter how good the proof was. The proof is to be a source in this you pretty much had to be involved or a victim. And the source would have to be prepared to incriminate themselves and break confidentiality with serious implications to themselves.

That’s an assuredly high bar and thus they silence themselves.

Oh wow do ‘we’ do that? I’m pretty sure I do the opposite.

Also, that’s not what most people mean when they use the phrase “echo-chamber” - it’s not that you tailor your opinions, it’s that the algorithm tailors the content it serves you. Wonder if that’s a deliberate misstatement, considering the Washington Post would be the one guilty of facilitating the creation of an echo chamber… shifting blame to users / readers seems kinda sus