> You don't use a loaded phrase like "Stasi-like" unless you're implying something nefarious.
To be perfectly clear, he was using it to refer to citizen-surveillance which is patently nefarious.
> Greenwald is ascribing a lot of intent that he can't back up.
Those of us who suffered her social media account while it was public have the context to know that his characterization isn't far off. More importantly though, this isn't about her, but rather about the broader trend of policing ideological transgressions and passing it off as "journalism".
She had a Clubhouse invite and reported on what (she thought) she heard. That's not surveillance any more than watching TV is surveillance. Would Greenwald appreciate his methods being referred to as KGB-like espionage? Because working a source to reveal classified material is how they would do it.
And it's seriously rich of him to accuse another journalist of pursuing an agenda.
Neither is listening in on Clubhouse. That convo was invite-only, but not private. And to my other point, what about Donald Sterling? He had a one-on-one private phone call leaked by his mistress that resulted in him being banned for life from the NBA for expressing his personal opinions. Consider that the apotheosis of "Cancel Culture". Now ask yourself if, knowing what we know about his true feelings, if we should respect his privacy and not complain about him owning an NBA franchise. Or if he is the true victim here. Or if it's just irrelevant that he's a billionaire and owned a fan-supported sports team.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding "citizen surveillance". It refers to peers policing each other for ideological transgressions, not the surveillance of citizens.
> And to my other point, what about Donald Sterling? He had a one-on-one private phone call leaked by his mistress that resulted in him being banned for life from the NBA for expressing his personal opinions. Consider that the apotheosis of "Cancel Culture".
Broken clocks are right twice a day, but that's hardly a reason to prefer them.
To be perfectly clear, he was using it to refer to citizen-surveillance which is patently nefarious.
> Greenwald is ascribing a lot of intent that he can't back up.
Those of us who suffered her social media account while it was public have the context to know that his characterization isn't far off. More importantly though, this isn't about her, but rather about the broader trend of policing ideological transgressions and passing it off as "journalism".