> In a perfect world people would use this as an opportunity to tell the government to shove it

In your vision of a perfect world. Personally, I’m fine with this. They aren’t using call logs or other private data. Information on social media is public or semi-public. Fair game, and I’m curious about the results.

(Agree that a more productive public debate is needed. But that shouldn’t start by presuming values.)

The problem in this case is not that private data might have been used. The problem is that the outcome of this research will be the US military developing a weapon that can be used to create or stop or influence political movements across the world (including inside the US). The question is whether it is a good idea to create such a weapon. War is inevitable but ever since time immemorial people have respected certain rules of engagement. Its difficult to draw the line in the sand to decide what type of propaganda is unacceptable, but it should be obvious that propaganda created using every dark pattern in the book, trained on 350B social media posts is probably not going to bode well for Earth's future. Its a lose-lose situation.

> whether it is a good idea to create such a weapon

These “should we do X” questions tend to be useless. If it can be done, it will be done, absent multilateral action. Being able to predict social upheaval for humanitarian and geopolitical positioning purposes is obviously useful.

The government using such models to suppress activism in the U.S. is bad. But knowing how such phenomenon work is also a precursor to preventing its abuse.

Then the US military would be very late to that crowded game.

So you're okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house? By definition, this type of surveillance data would still be public information.

> you're okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house?

One problem with the current state of the privacy debate is this sort of hyperbole.

No, I’m not. I delineate between information people intentionally cast publicly—even if they don’t understand the consequences of doing so—and information that occurs in public. My location, tracked by my phone and router to various apps’ servers, occurs in public. My tweets, on the other hand, are intentionally broadcast. There is a lot of grey area between these poles, but intent broadly inspires my thinking.

It isn’t hyperbole. Your existence outside of your private home is “occurring in public.” This is why the concept of paparazzi exists. The only difference is that normal people don’t have an army of photographers following them.

> It isn’t hyperbole

Extending “I’m fine with the U.S. military analysing social-media posts” to “okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house” is hyperbolic. Framed as a question, on the other hand, it invites discussion.

I was responding to the notion that public or semi-public information is fair game. My mistake if that was not clear.

As such, my point stands.

> Information on social media is public or semi-public. Fair game, and I’m curious about the results."

Carrying a smartphone is exactly that.

Probably just increase your shadow threat score.

People are just too afraid or they don't give a damn.

I think you just did.

Perfect world achieved!