Even if you, a private citizen, buys someone data to intimidate them, it just amounts to stalking and harassment. That’s not fascism.
If you’re saying that the government is outsourcing stalking and harassment of private citizens via these means, then that’s an interesting take. Personally, I think a government body may not necessarily have anything to do with such a thing, but private entities with resources could do it. Like some crazed hedge fund dude targeting anti-genocide protesters. These private entities may even get government contracts, so who knows.
In U.S. history civil rights activists were straight up assassinated, and so were U.S. presidents who got too uppity as far as someone else was concerned. Environmental or social justice activists were always targeted or tracked by govt. agencies. The regular person who holds spicy political takes on any ideology isn’t a concern unless they’re in the news or getting attention.
I am not naive about the state of things, but I also don’t think they’re any worse than they’ve been before in terms of govt control over activism. The main problem now is psyops at scale. Countries like China and Russia safeguard themselves from it by having a homogenous culture, which is antithetical to democracies.
Tbh it’s not mass surveillance that adds chilling effects to activist action, but the constant seizing of power and resources by oligarchs. I think in this instance people who want change should become a part of the system, ie the government or its agencies.
If we fool ourselves into thinking the U.S. or any other western state is as bad as current fascists regimes, we’ve lost the psyops war. Can things be better, yes. There’s no way to get that without organizing for change, and creating strong local communities.
Even if you, a private citizen, buys someone data to intimidate them, it just amounts to stalking and harassment. That’s not fascism.
If you’re saying that the government is outsourcing stalking and harassment of private citizens via these means, then that’s an interesting take. Personally, I think a government body may not necessarily have anything to do with such a thing, but private entities with resources could do it. Like some crazed hedge fund dude targeting anti-genocide protesters. These private entities may even get government contracts, so who knows.
In U.S. history civil rights activists were straight up assassinated, and so were U.S. presidents who got too uppity as far as someone else was concerned. Environmental or social justice activists were always targeted or tracked by govt. agencies. The regular person who holds spicy political takes on any ideology isn’t a concern unless they’re in the news or getting attention.
I am not naive about the state of things, but I also don’t think they’re any worse than they’ve been before in terms of govt control over activism. The main problem now is psyops at scale. Countries like China and Russia safeguard themselves from it by having a homogenous culture, which is antithetical to democracies.
Tbh it’s not mass surveillance that adds chilling effects to activist action, but the constant seizing of power and resources by oligarchs. I think in this instance people who want change should become a part of the system, ie the government or its agencies.
If we fool ourselves into thinking the U.S. or any other western state is as bad as current fascists regimes, we’ve lost the psyops war. Can things be better, yes. There’s no way to get that without organizing for change, and creating strong local communities.