And what will you do when you find corruption among them? Even when symmetric, surveillance benefits those with power.

Then you see more than our wise economists, whose theory predicts, by way of simplified models and comparative advantage, that our instincts are wrong and everything will work out okay.

[1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200625-labour-leaders-kn...

[2] https://www.amnestyusa.org/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-dep...

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/how-big-tech-created-a-data-tr...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-a...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/13/jail-someone-for...

[4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/geofence-warrants-thre...

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364...

You think? Who the deans are is public information - why not test your hypothesis and check?

Edit: Instead of sarcastically apologizing, please find sources to either prove or refute your statement.

Edit 2: As dragonwriter points out, each school can have many deans. Perhaps you meant president? In which case, according to their wikipedia pages, only 5 of the 8 Ivy League presidents are Jewish (Yale, Brown, Harvard, UPenn, and Princeton), for a total of 62.5%, well short of your 90%.

The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not.

https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

While the main issue is forcing items we own to disobey us and instead answer to a different master, I'd like to point out that all the proposed actions are either distractions when one should be focusing on the road, or a dangerous override of user inputs (will it slow down when you're trying to overtake or merge into traffic?)

1) It was public when the content was posted by its authors. Facebook locked it down retroactively, regardless of the author's intent.

2) A login requirement doesn't make it non-public, if making an account is trivial, and there are already hundreds of millions of accounts. Is the plot of Avengers: Endgame also not public, because it's locked behind a ticket purchase or subscription?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company

What I clearly meant was if that should be the only defense we have against such companies. Or should we also have things like food and work safety regulations, and anti-child-labor laws.

> What’s more democratic than a vast majority of people making such choices without coercion?

Consumerism is the ultimate democracy, voting for laws and representatives is tyranny...

Some even openly admit it. In Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett of Tufts University writes:

I don’t challenge the critics’ motives or even their tactics; if I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good. I’d want to make up some good epithets, such as genetic determinist or reductionist or Darwinian Fundamentalist, and then flail those straw men as hard as I could. As the saying goes, it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.

This legislation is the result of democratic process - i.e. decided by the "common people", if indirectly.

> let the greater populace decide that by choosing that product

"The only legitimate power citizens have is that of consumers, not voters." - shall we also decide to only buy from companies that don't use child labor, and don't put toxic chemicals in food, and don't pollute, or are those areas something where legislation is legitimate, while reigning in anti-competitive practices for some reason is not okay?

No, for the common good. We are all harmed when Apple or Google can decide which businesses will succeed or fail, which apps get censored and which are allowed.

This is the worst anti-surveillance argument. The last thing I want is to be accurately predicted. As far as I'm concerned, once the models are perfected and they can accurately predict everything you will do or say, things will be far worse.