This is a cool way to protect a belief, narrowing the scope so that the refuting data do not apply anymore. Perhaps I can write a fucking essay about it, but do you have data to support this narrowing move? There is like a ton of data that the West has been invasively spying of possible threats to the status quo (from Cointelpro to undercover UK cops like recently), not just people “acting on it”. Furthermore, actions can fall under protected free speech as well, like putting up a poster, demonstrating, and protesting. So your proposal is inherently undemocratic if you roll back freedom to only protect oral expression, quite similar to a “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards gay people. What you just said is simply counter-factual. Blanket surveillance is a staple of Western societies in the 21st century, and it blows my mind that there are still people oblivious to what is more or less spelled out clearly in the Patriot Act and all laws modeled after it across the globe.

At this point the ones preaching against trans liberation are the same ones that will take away your union protections. This is the long and short of it.

In this case, your wavering of your own privacy is normalizing surveillance for all of us, therefore your self-indignation is essentially a selfish behavior. Privacy is a fucking right after all. If you don’t want to make use of it, you should not dictate whether others have the very chance to use it.

Explain to them that Meta employees can and will look at their sexting and nude photos.

If this doesn’t alert them, they are a lost cause.