Writers Say They Feel Censored by Surveillance
Chilling effect has been achieved, all according to plan.To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; terrorism is merely an excuse for technological implementation that was desired since time immemorial by the powers that be.Now, onto the implications that the NY Times was too friendly to state:1. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside of people they trust2. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication3. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2Therefore,4. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressedIn terms of the scope, while the poll was only of writers, it seems as though the majority of writers consider themselves to be victims here.I think it's safe to say that the implications I listed are also applicable to other segments of the population-- most importantly, the segments of the population that are the usual hotbeds of dissent, because they are more likely to be paying attention to advances in government power which would create a chilling effect.The chilling effect produced by the endless rounds of disclosure of government abuse of surveillance is probably not going to go away anytime soon. Unfortunately, self-censorship is one more nail in the moribund democracy here in the US. Keep in mind that even if a person does not self censor, the mainstream media (which should now be understood as including major internet news hubs such as reddit) will likely prevent off-narrative news from spreading.So, what's the solution? I don't know. Still waiting on a hot new SV startup to "disrupt" the surveillance state.