this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

privacy

9798 readers
7 users here now

Big tech and governments are monitoring and recording your eating activities. c/Privacy provides tips and tricks to protect your privacy against global surveillance.

Partners:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://imgbox.com/qlaBvJVW


The moderators of lemmy.ml show an unwillingness to accept rational discussion and demonstrate a flawed understanding of mutual respect.

Discussion continues here


Surveillance protects people from terrorism, and sacrificing some privacy makes us safer.

Do you agree? If not, what is your counterargument?

Edit:

Among the meaningless comments made by people who are incapable of rational thinking, these few are actually meaningful and reasonable.

From @Ildsaye@hexbear.net

Surveillance gives terrorists like the US and its Zionist appendage a huge advantage, and the working class should not be surrendering its data to them without a fight.

From @artyom@piefed.social

https://gizmodo.com/reddit-meta-and-google-voluntarily-gave-dhs-info-of-anti-ice-users-report-says-2000722279

However those comments can only prove Surveillance are unacceptable in America and Zionist related countries, Can anyone provide a counterpoint for other countries like Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I fixed the community link, I originally had an extra g and forgot the numeral zero in dbzer0. !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

A top level comment I mean by a reply to your own post like you did here. That's where the previous and additional long-form context belongs. Don't force people to scroll past it all in the body text, if it's not the main point of the discussion you wish to have. The body text should be for information relevant to the post title, or treat it like a long subheading. Think of your first reply to your own as having roughly equal weight to every other comment, it sorts itself among the others depending on how useful people feel it is.

...sacrificing some privacy makes us safer. Do you agree?

This portion of the question you posed, perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but it implies that this is your opinion and you are asking if people agree with it. The way a question is asked often tells a respondent how the asker feels. A skeptic towards the effectiveness of surveillance asking the same question would phrase it more like: "Do you buy the idea that surveillance prevents terrorism and is good for safety?"

If you get the point, allow me to suggest a better presentation that has the questioner start at a neutral position: "To what level, in your opinion, is national surveillance in the name of safety and terrorism prevention acceptable? Does this change between authoritarian governments vs. democracies?" I can explain why this is more conducive to discussion than the other two if you need.

...people who are incapable of rational thinking

Yeah nah, that part is an insult by you, at some in the previous thread, but throwing insults begets insults. The surrounding observations explaining how you came to that subjective opinion doesn't change that. Hence my suggestion to leave them out if you want better discussion in a new thread, this is also part of the change in approach I recommend. While best omitted entirely, an example of a way to say effectively what you had wrote but without insults, would be "The quality of some of the replies I received were not as I had hoped".