Larry Ellison – 'citizens will be on their best behavior' amid nonstop recording

Dystopian parallels and bureaucratic harm

• Commenters invoke 1984 and Brazil to frame ubiquitous AI surveillance as dystopian, not aspirational.
• Some argue these stories are exaggerated, but note that small bureaucratic errors already have life‑altering consequences in real life.

Surveillance, behavior change, and chilling effects

• Many agree people act differently when watched, citing social media shaming, virality, and fear of losing jobs or schooling as reasons younger people avoid public excess (e.g., drinking, drugs).
• Others argue surveillance without consistent enforcement won’t improve behavior; it mainly produces a “chilling effect” where people self‑censor, especially around mental health, dissent, or controversial topics.
• Several stress that humans have multiple social “modes” (family, colleagues, authorities) and that forced, permanent performance for cameras is fundamentally inhuman.

Power, inequality, and ‘rules for thee’

• A core objection is asymmetry: elites propose total surveillance for “citizens” while expecting privacy for themselves.
• Multiple comments demand that any pro‑surveillance advocate be fully monitored first (finances, messages, movements) as a test; others suggest “pilot” programs starting with billionaires and the top 10%.
• There’s broad concern that pervasive recording simply creates tools for selective punishment, entrenching inequality rather than curbing abuse.

Does surveillance make societies safer?

• Examples like London, the UK generally, and body‑camera studies are debated.
• Some say high surveillance hasn’t obviously reduced crime; others cite mixed empirical results (modest reductions in complaints/use of force under certain body‑cam policies).
• Several emphasize that cameras don’t matter if laws are selectively enforced and institutions protect police and powerful actors.

Billionaire influence, media, and foreign policy

• Many see the comments as part of a broader pattern: extremely wealthy individuals using AI, data, and media ownership to seek “order” and shape society in their interests.
• There is extended debate over the relevance of the poster’s foreign‑policy positions (especially on Israel/Gaza) to their surveillance advocacy; some see it as central to understanding their authoritarian leanings, others as derailment.

Responses and resistance

• Suggestions include refusing to build such systems, supporting privacy tools (Tor, i2p), and insisting that legal norms, not technological determinism, should decide how surveillance is used.
• Several note that ordinary citizens themselves often demand more surveillance for “order,” even at the expense of justice and future political freedom.