I hope this discussion will gain some more mainstream traction, because it's the more immediate threat or practice, while not nearly being addressed sufficiently. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with, is the perceived notion, that the lack of transparency is the problem. The fact that these systems are in place is the problem: stop collecting excessive personal data on your workers (which depend on their jobs for an income), and all the problems magically disappear; without ambiguity.

I'm of the opinion that "private" property, which structurally invites the public (including workers), shouldn't classify as "private" property, and be subject to much stricter regulations on deployment of surveillance systems. It's not ethically justifiable, for people to be forced, to subject themselves to surveillance, simply to be able to make a living and buy food for themselves. Advances in technology have made it so, that surveillance tech is no longer compatible with modern society: supervisors (including law-enforcement) got to greedy, and now it's (hopefully) coming to bite them in the ass.

Catching up to analysis from four years ago, I see.

Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs

I mean yes, but also no

The job apocalypse is absolutely not something to forget.

It's a much greater threat given it will require us to change the world economic system to one that doesn't require everyone to have a job to survive. The alternative? Everyone in slums and poverty.

The media will be desperate to point you to anything other than that because it's an existential threat to their owners.

A little surprising to see this from the Guardian given they have a different ownership model to most outlets, but I guess it's a good reminder that all media will defend money if push comes to shove