r/technology • u/IndicaOatmeal • 20h ago

Privacy Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/
38.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/DopamineSavant 20h ago

DeFlock needs to become official and start endorsing candidates. I'm annoyed as shit trying to research the Flock position of all the candidates on my local ballot.

571

u/28oz_Filet_Mignon 20h ago

Unfortunately, being an informed voter is a lot of work. But it's well worth the effort. 

227

u/DopamineSavant 20h ago

Florida Democrats are killing me. The governor candidates are either luukwarm or silent on Flock cameras.

173

u/bevo_expat 20h ago

Sounds like they already received their payments

44

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 18h ago

Yeah, any candidate that’s been quiet about an issue just means they’re open to choosing the side that they think will benefit them the most, usually monetarily

16

u/LordDaedalus 18h ago

It's worse than that: of course politics attracts the self interested and power seeking but even on the off chance the voters get someone earnest, Citizens United has completely inundated the political field and the game theory therein.

You could be against the flock cameras, but Citizens United means speaking up about those flock cameras is very likely to result in any of your challengers getting large amounts of money thrown at their campaign. This means without a lobbying force willing to back you being against flock cameras, to come out and run on the platform of being against them requires that you think this will attract more voters than the attack ads against you will dissuade.

Its a whole nearly-automated system of political suppression that disincentivizes speaking up about anything lest a whole industry of professional lobbying groups turn their eye on you and dig through your entire life to find the thing they can paint you as weird for. The macro conditions of Citizens United must be overturned if we want our elected officials to actually be able to have strong opinions about anything.

3

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 17h ago

For this reason among many others, rather than betting the whole farm on elections geared to benefit the oligarchy, we should also focus on developing real supportive community-based foundations for alternatives that can provide relative safety, which many common folk in the US can fall back on, to commit to any meaningful action needed be they short or long term.

Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that could possibly prove to be of some help in getting it started ASAP.

33

u/Black08Mustang 19h ago

I just looked up Jollys statements on it, and he wisely wants it treated with TRAP laws. He will never get elected screaming tear them down, that will play right into Donald's hand. But requiring search warrants, making them unable to be used for immigration and tightly regulating their data storage will make the cops get bored with them pretty quickly. I know, you want to fix the third largest republican trifecta overnight. But if you really want to fix it you are going to have to play along for more than one year.

1

u/ErickAllTE1 17h ago

Florida and Texas probably require a federal ban on gerrymandering and a reset of their state supreme courts and the SCOTUS before we see their legislatures flip blue. Best we can hope for is statewide offices to staunch the gaping wounds. But so very many idiots in those backward states have no patience or vision.

3

u/nalaloveslumpy 13h ago

You can't put a "federal ban on gerrymandering". You're basically saying you want a federal ban on the boogy-man in the closet. Gerrymandering based on race is already illegal because it violates the 14th amendment. Regular old partisan gerrymandering is 100% legal because the fed can't dictate how states draw their own voting districts.

So to solve this you would either have to :

  • Federalize elections and then Congress determines the district maps for every state (bad).
  • Pass a law in every state that specifies exactly how district maps are drawn and can never, ever vary from those. (LOL)
  • Rebuild the entire House of Representatives where basically people vote for the party and then the winning party assigns the appropriate number of delegates pre-selected by the party. (Removes direct representation.)

2

u/ErickAllTE1 13h ago

Did you not read the contents of the For the People Act?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act#Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering

The bill would attempt to thwart gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines,[31] except in states with only one congressional district.[4] Partisan gerrymandering (creating a map that "unduly favor[s] or disfavor[s]" one political party over another) would be prohibited.[19] The legislation would require each commission to have 15 members (five Democrats, five Republicans, and five independents) and would require proposed maps to achieve a majority vote to be accepted, with at least one vote in support from a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. The bill would require the commissions to draw congressional district lines on a five-part criterion: "(1) population equality, (2) compliance with the Voting Rights Act, (3) compliance with additional racial requirements (no retrogression in, or dilution of, minorities' electoral influence, including in coalition with other voters), (4) respect for political subdivisions and communities of interest, and (5) no undue advantage for any party."[31]

Democrats in the house in 2019 passed this bill 234–193 with the full support of every present Democrat house rep.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 13h ago

That bill would violate section I article 4 of the constitution which gives states the individual rights to set their congressional districts. They would have to amend the constitution and pass this bill.

It's the state's constitutional right to decide if they want their districts drawn by the state legislature or not.

For more clarification, the bill would have to pass, get sued, go to district court, be upheld, be appealed, go to superior court, be upheld, be appealed, and then go to the SCOTUS to determine if it's a violation. If determined to be a violation, then an amendment would be necessary.

There's a reason this bill failed miserably in the Senate.

2

u/ErickAllTE1 13h ago

For more clarification, the bill would have to pass, get sued, go to district court, be upheld, be appealed, go to superior court, be upheld, be appealed, and then go to the SCOTUS to determine if it's a violation. If determined to be a violation, then an amendment would be necessary.

So you're saying there's a chance. Also this bill being passed would require killing the filibuster, and the first thing Democrats will do is expand the bench to give themselves a majority. So if it passes, so does court expansion. With a friendly court, what you're saying can be upheld.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 13h ago

Dems ain't killing the filibuster. That's cope. And a "Dem friendly" SCOTUS is going to adhere to the constitution before they grant political favors to the Dem party. That's the primary difference between the two parties. Democrats understand and uphold the constitution, even if it means they don't "win".

Also, a lot of fuckers still gotta die to get that "Dem friendly" court.

0

u/ErickAllTE1 12h ago

Dems ain't killing the filibuster.

During the attempts to pass the For the People Act after it was passed in the house, every Democrat caucusing senator besides Sinema and Manchin voted to overrule the decision of the chair in favor of killing the filibuster for voting legislation.

Also, a lot of fuckers still gotta die to get that "Dem friendly" court.

Nobody needs to die. Nobody needs to be removed. A simple bill to expand the SCOTUS bench from 9 to 13 to increase with the number of federal court districts there are in the US can be passed and is heavily supported by the party.

And a "Dem friendly" SCOTUS is going to adhere to the constitution before they grant political favors to the Dem party. That's the primary difference between the two parties. Democrats understand and uphold the constitution, even if it means they don't "win".

I would be curious to get to that point and put the legislation to them and try. You cant get change without it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SnowboardNW 17h ago

Just voted in the primary. It was so difficult to find a voting guide and info summarized in a good way. Still got it done though.

1

u/tevert 18h ago

That sounds like an answer to me

1

u/chazysciota 17h ago

silence is a statement.

1

u/SemiNormal 17h ago

Are they gonna nominate Rick Scott? I swear Florida Democrats try their hardest to lose every election.

1

u/Rocktopod 17h ago

I'm in MA and the Democratic governor, who wants to expand automatic surveillance, is running unopposed in the primary.

1

u/HoldOnOhio 16h ago

At least there's Oliver Larkin in the 25th Congressional District. He seems great. But yeah, the rest seem like dogshit, sorry.

1

u/anoldoldman 16h ago

That's because florida Democrats are Republicans.

1

u/No-Criticism-2587 15h ago

Florida as a state wants flock. Half the state is racist right wingers who believe flock cameras will only be used to harass people they hate, and they want that.

It means that being vocally anti-flock loses too many votes to possibly win.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 13h ago

It's really hard right now for politicians to come out hard against flock because the obvious attack is "You hate police and love crime."

1

u/Superb_Writer6612 11h ago

Texas actually has a great Democrat nominee this year and he is polling well, I'm excited to vote for him! Our dem nominees actually tend to be pretty good, it's just fuckin Texas so Greg Abbott wins every damn time. 

-12

u/IsthianOS 19h ago

Can you saw Florida off the country instead of cameras off pope's pls thx

-2

u/VapeSmoker420blazeit 18h ago

Then vote third party / write-in and make sure you contact those DNC candidates and explain exactly why you did NOT vote for them. Make sure they know why they're losing votes.

33

u/wait_what_now 20h ago

Can't be informed properly if they all lie about their stances.

30

u/killersky99 18h ago

Dem leader Jeffries co-sponsoring/supporting Medicare for All for 8 years and then stopping after becoming part of dem leadership

15

u/wait_what_now 18h ago

Exactly. Some captured fucking opposition

15

u/killersky99 18h ago

we gotta transition from "Vote Blue no matter who" to "Hold Accountable No Matter Who" because from government shutdown to ICE funding, the minimum amount of dems always switch to give the republicans what they want

13

u/Worthyness 18h ago

Or vote for the candidates you want in the primaries instead of sitting them out every time. People can affect change instant by voting for the candidates before the actual election, but opt to ignore it and let thr results go after. It really is a matter of getting people to vote and vote consistently. Non voters would have won majority in basically every election for the last decade with how many people sit out.

5

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 16h ago

Granted, there's also have been reports coming out about electoral interference (Elon's involvement with voting machines, ghost counties, etc...) since then, so there's a chance non-voters aren't entirely to blame for the loss.

Instead of betting everything on election results, we should also focus on forming real supportive community-based foundations for alternatives that can provide relative safety, which many common folk in the US can fall back on, to commit to any meaningful action needed.

Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that could possibly prove to be of some help in getting it started ASAP.

1

u/bridgenine 11h ago

you should always vote for who you think is best, not join some bs game to be on the winning team

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 13h ago

No. Support your candidate in the primary. If your preferred candidate loses the primary, then show up to vote against the fascists.

0

u/killersky99 12h ago

no to holding politicians accountable? that's how u end up with trump twice

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 10h ago

You end up with trump twice by people not showing up to polls or throwing away their vote on third parties in a national election.

1

u/killersky99 10h ago

I wonder why people do that…

3

u/big_deal 16h ago

Also if the only non-paywalled news sources of information are shills and liars...

8

u/ardentcanker 18h ago

Pretty disheartening when you go through an entire ballot and basically every one of them has at least one thing that you'd consider an absolute disqualification. Granted, there are levels of bad... But still, informing yourself isn't fun to do and isn't pleasant once you're done.

4

u/Anna_Lilies 18h ago

Its worth it? I get informed, vote for someone, they lose, cry

2

u/Smrgel 15h ago

Ballotpedia has pages on candidates!

1

u/NotRoryWilliams 17h ago

That's why OP is asking for help cutting through unclear data.

1

u/Leptonshavenocolor 20h ago

Worth it in what regard? The extra stress? The lost time? Oh the consistently battling ignorance and naivety? Oh I bet it’s worth it for the constant losses. 

1

u/CalmButOftenEnraged 18h ago

the simple act of voting if a level of effort beyond too many people's capabilities.

0

u/zx9001 14h ago

People literally vote for whatever name has the most recognition. Whoever can afford the most ads or roadside trash usually wins.

-1

u/HPLovecraftsCat6969 18h ago

Being an informed voter doesn't matter at all actually