News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Addressing the distribution of illicit sexual content by ... by hn_throwaway_99 on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @12:39PM (#36229333)
I'd be really cautious against reading too much into this. I think often times with this type of polling data, when you dig into the details you find that people aren't as far apart as you might think, but it's more that people tend to focus on different parts of how the question is asked.

The original survey data is at https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-gov... (I'd also note this post is from the libertarian Cato Institute, so it's important to understand where their motivation comes from). The exact question was "Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?" It's not hard for me to think that younger people, many of whom just went through years of "Zoom school" and essentially had governmental authority piped into their homes, would just focus on "sure, reducing domestic violence and abuse is a good thing". Alternatively, you see that minorities, particularly African Americans are much more in favor than white Americans (33% vs. 9%). It's possible some people are coming at this from the point of view of "yeah, this would be like police body cameras ensuring that I'm not the victim of false reporting."

I don't mean to whitewash the differences, and as someone who thinks the idea of government installing cameras in your home is the absolute definition of "the end of the free world", I don't mean to minimize it. But I think you might get very different responses if you just asked "Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household?" without the rationale behind it. I also think that if you dug into it and asked people follow up questions (e.g. "Where should these cameras be installed") you would get more agreement.

I guess my overall point is that I think the differences in responses have more to do with how people interpret the question (though it's certainly fair to be concerned about that) than more fundamental differences around "comfort with government in my bedroom" that the Cato Institute's interpretation might lead one to believe.

Re:Addressing the distribution of illicit sexual content by ... by alexb_ on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @01:11PM (#36229809)
I don't see how this invalidates the data at all. If/when government surviellance is pushed into our homes, "to protect people" will absolutely be the reasoning used.

I agree that zoom school and body cams might be responsible for this shift in mentality. But that doesn't make it a good thing. All you've done in your rebuttal is state the reasons why attitudes towards government surveillance have shifted - you don't actually dispute that the difference exists.

Re:Addressing the distribution of illicit sexual content by ... by hn_throwaway_99 on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @01:24PM (#36230005)
My point is somewhat nuanced so I'll try to explain it more clearly. When these types of polls come out, often the reaction is "Wow, <other side> is definitely crazy, how can they want this?" But when you get down to the details, I think you'll find that the envisioned "actual implementation" of how this would play out is not as different as people think.

Simple example that could at least explain some of the difference. Younger people and poorer people (and, it the US, there is a strong correlation between economic status and race) are much more likely to live in communal setups, e.g. dormatories and apartment buildings, compared to older and more affluent people. So it's possible one group is thinking about this more as "There are already cameras in our hallways, why not hook them up to stop abuse?" while the other group is thinking "You want to put cameras in my bedroom."

That is, any pollster knows you can give extremely different responses solely based on how you word the question. I'm arguing that you could likely word this question differently and you would see responses that didn't nearly differ as much.

More than that, though, I totally agree that "'to protect people' will absolutely be the reasoning used." But I think even then it's important to understand the real underlying fears people have, and then point out that there can be other solutions that are much less intrusive and open to abuse, rather than completely discounting those fears to begin with.