> Maybe that's justified, or isn't in service of a "surveillance dystopia"
For crying out loud, I oppose a surveillance dystopia as much as anyone and far more than most. But it's not a surveillance dystopia for the things you publicly say and have your name attached to as you publish it to be brought to the attention of the publisher.
If you wanna talk about censorship, we can talk. But that's a different concept often related.
> have your name attached to as you publish it be brought to the attention of the publisher
Yes but by whom, and are they being held to the same standards of accountability?
If corporations collude in favor of the state against its political opponents in order to secure their place in a new regime's cabinet and no one is around to hear the president order it, is it still fascism?
I didn't say it was good. I said if you want to argue the benefits/costs of censorship that's a different story. But it's not a surveillance dystopia issue.
For crying out loud, I oppose a surveillance dystopia as much as anyone and far more than most. But it's not a surveillance dystopia for the things you publicly say and have your name attached to as you publish it to be brought to the attention of the publisher.
If you wanna talk about censorship, we can talk. But that's a different concept often related.