That context was totally different. Broadcast TV is not just a collection isolated clips you can search for and pull up. But the internet is. And we could just get or share the clip direct from the source without it being edited and packaged into influencer content. Maybe it’s not simple or easy sometimes, but it’s usually possible.
Those shows of the past were what you tuned into. On the internet, we can share direct pieces of video and audio and images with each other. The commentary is optional. On broadcast television, the context had to come from the packaging. On the internet we can provide text based context alongside the videoclip. We can organize it into a database. We can share it in specific contexts like communities.
influencers packaging clips like this is different, and the person you replied to is correct. People can enjoy this woman fine and follow her for her commentary. But suggesting this is how we should share information because it’s how broadcast television worked before the internet is justifying something we don’t need to justify. And it’s doing so with an onerous comparison, in my opinion.
You mean the American psyop app now. As of January 22, 2026, Oracle (Larry Ellison), Silver Lake, MGX, the personal investment entity for Michael Dell, and some others, own more than 80%. ByteDance in China retains only 19.9% ownership.
The algorithm is in Beijing. The algorithm has never and will never leave Beijing. All TikTok traffic is centralized in Beijing, and they have demonstrated they will shut it down before they ever change that, because it’s not a business it’s a weapon created by the CCP.
Even the shares are still more Chinese than not.
ByteDance employees own 20%
The founder owns 21%
Various international investment firms linked to China own large swaths
Just because the Chinese fucks have always supported and worked with the Trump administration doesn’t make it any less a Chinese psyop.
I get your point but this lady isn’t a random influencer. She has been diligently spreading awareness on a lot of fucked up things in the US for several years now and has a decent following. She’s doing what she can.
I’m not disagreeing with you on her character (i dont know who this is), but you did just describe an influencer.
Although now that I’m rereading your comment I realize you didn’t refute that she’s and influencer just not a ranom one.
To add, I also understand that without her influence neither I, nor most of the commenters here would have seen this video and she acheives that by inserting her face to appease the algorithm.
I was just thinking. All it would really take to get rid of Flock in a jurisdiction is one (1) cop with good intentions.
Get Flock records of at least one family member for each person on the council, or the councilfolks themselves, print it all and bring that to the council meeting in front of everyone.
I don’t think such a cop exists though, especially in the US.
I don’t know if this reverse psychology will work on elected officials, but what a great speech! The council folks may not be won over, but I would think audience members will notice. Increased attention like this has worked where I live, the officials in charge decided to not add in additional surveillance. The “top cop,” however, used language that seemed to me indicate they would pursue this in the future.
So I had a speech class once in college where we were expected to give a persuasive speech with a visual aid. I chose to give a persuasive speech on online privacy rights and for the US to adopt a GDPR-like law, and my chosen visual aid was a dossier I drew up for every person in the class room (professor included) on their current and previous addresses, phone numbers, maiden names, schools, etc. that were all available to me online either directly through there name or through there spouse (the guy who was former military special ops and thus intentionally private online was surprised I found so much detail on him, but I was able to get it via his wife whose name I got from Facebook). It was incredibly effective.
I propose we do the same thing for every city council member in the country where Flock has been allowed to invade our privacy. Buy their data from Flock and any other online source for that matter. Find all of their comings and goings, list dates and times, trips to dr appointments, places they shop and eat, where they live, where their kids go to school, who visits their home, where they travel, etc. For them and their immediate families. If they are uncomfortable with all of that information being publically available, then good! Don’t allow Flock to make it available! The fact that all of that information is being collected and tracked by anybody, let alone profit-driven corporations that will use that data and sell that data by any legal means to gain a buck (and plenty less than legal ways) should be uncomfortable, even scary.
Of course it’s great that she’s taken the effort to take a stand for something she believes in, while most people are just moaning about it on line, but while the style of delivery is shareable it’s not really how one communicates with the public or with public officials.
The only people who will think this is a “good speech” are the people who already believe what she does, when she’s really trying to reach everyone else.
For that reason the snarky witty basis isn’t really helpful. She also needs to reduce her pace by about two thirds.
The fact that the council won’t likely be swayed by her alone isn’t her problem. Her wit and the virality can bring other pressure beyond her own delivery.
And the pacing is likely attributable to the fact that public commentary is limited to a time constraint in these meetings. She had a lot to say and not a lot of time to say it in.
That’s true, there’s usually a time limit for statements from the public.
However, when you’re making a statement your primary objective is for your points to be received by your audience. Talking faster does not support that objective.
I don’t agree that witty snarky is the right way to get virality or traction, it’s too easy for the minds you’re trying to reach to disregard. Greta Thunberg demonstrated what a young female orator stating the obvious can achieve.
I don’t agree that there’s only a single prescribed method that everyone should attempt to emulate. This method was incisive and memorable. It drove the point home very effectively. She brought real world examples instead of just hypothetical fears. Her sarcastic delivery implied that the council’s position was gleefully evil and comfortable with authoritarian abuses, which should give them pause and make them consider at least how they’re being perceived, much less what their actual motivations are. And she offered real world consequences by mentioning their reelection. Greta can do it her way. This woman should continue being herself.
Greta Thunberg demonstrated what a young female orator stating the obvious can achieve.
She achieved some virtue signaling responses that didn’t actually improve the issue from the side that was already pro and being called a sock puppet from the side that was con.
What Greta has achieved in modern times with her actions, not with speeches, is way more powerful.
Everything I said applies to voters just the same. This type of thing only speaks to the people who already agree. Anyone who is ambivalent isn’t going to be motivated by witty snarky whiny voice.
In my experience, this kind is speech is very effective for people who already agree with you in principle, but aren’t mad/motivated enough to take action on the issue. I agree is probably not the most effective at changing minds, but as a kind of rallying call it works.
Awesome, but why did we need the other lady’s intro and outro? Fucking “influencers”.
We really didn’t. I’d upload a different version without that before and after if I’d found it
Every phone is a 1970’s super computer in your pocket. The built in photo library apps can trim videos on the fly.
But that takes effort.
I mean that’s literally how television shows showing similar format content worked back in the before times… Introduction, footage, commentary.
Now this lady didn’t add all that much, but it’s a stretch to make this seem like an “influencer” thing…more a product of her time.
Whippersnapper.
That context was totally different. Broadcast TV is not just a collection isolated clips you can search for and pull up. But the internet is. And we could just get or share the clip direct from the source without it being edited and packaged into influencer content. Maybe it’s not simple or easy sometimes, but it’s usually possible.
Those shows of the past were what you tuned into. On the internet, we can share direct pieces of video and audio and images with each other. The commentary is optional. On broadcast television, the context had to come from the packaging. On the internet we can provide text based context alongside the videoclip. We can organize it into a database. We can share it in specific contexts like communities.
influencers packaging clips like this is different, and the person you replied to is correct. People can enjoy this woman fine and follow her for her commentary. But suggesting this is how we should share information because it’s how broadcast television worked before the internet is justifying something we don’t need to justify. And it’s doing so with an onerous comparison, in my opinion.
Did I? I don’t think so.
I’d also like to advocate against the fucking Chinese Psyop app.
You mean the American psyop app now. As of January 22, 2026, Oracle (Larry Ellison), Silver Lake, MGX, the personal investment entity for Michael Dell, and some others, own more than 80%. ByteDance in China retains only 19.9% ownership.
Is that the same Larry Ellison that’s buying all the network tv broadcast stations?
Of course it is.
The algorithm is in Beijing. The algorithm has never and will never leave Beijing. All TikTok traffic is centralized in Beijing, and they have demonstrated they will shut it down before they ever change that, because it’s not a business it’s a weapon created by the CCP.
Even the shares are still more Chinese than not.
ByteDance employees own 20%
The founder owns 21%
Various international investment firms linked to China own large swaths
Just because the Chinese fucks have always supported and worked with the Trump administration doesn’t make it any less a Chinese psyop.
It runs in Beijing or it is developed in Beijing?
The US must have the power to manage block lists and weights and if they see undesired election influence they will pull the plug.
I get your point but this lady isn’t a random influencer. She has been diligently spreading awareness on a lot of fucked up things in the US for several years now and has a decent following. She’s doing what she can.
I’m not disagreeing with you on her character (i dont know who this is), but you did just describe an influencer. Although now that I’m rereading your comment I realize you didn’t refute that she’s and influencer just not a ranom one. To add, I also understand that without her influence neither I, nor most of the commenters here would have seen this video and she acheives that by inserting her face to appease the algorithm.
It would be cooler if she got info on the council members themselves.
That would be my tactic too. Basically dox the city council members since they’re actively doxxing their entire city
That is what I was expecting/hoping for.
*Santa Clarita. Very much not Santa Clara. Nor is it Santa Carla, the setting of The Lost Boys.
Fixed, thanks
It is the setting of The Santa Clarita Diet, though.
I was just thinking. All it would really take to get rid of Flock in a jurisdiction is one (1) cop with good intentions.
Get Flock records of at least one family member for each person on the council, or the councilfolks themselves, print it all and bring that to the council meeting in front of everyone.
I don’t think such a cop exists though, especially in the US.
It’s difficult and at times dangerous going against the grain. It’s just easy to follow superiors and let this privacy nightmare happen.
I don’t know if this reverse psychology will work on elected officials, but what a great speech! The council folks may not be won over, but I would think audience members will notice. Increased attention like this has worked where I live, the officials in charge decided to not add in additional surveillance. The “top cop,” however, used language that seemed to me indicate they would pursue this in the future.
The council: Oh no! Anyway…
So I had a speech class once in college where we were expected to give a persuasive speech with a visual aid. I chose to give a persuasive speech on online privacy rights and for the US to adopt a GDPR-like law, and my chosen visual aid was a dossier I drew up for every person in the class room (professor included) on their current and previous addresses, phone numbers, maiden names, schools, etc. that were all available to me online either directly through there name or through there spouse (the guy who was former military special ops and thus intentionally private online was surprised I found so much detail on him, but I was able to get it via his wife whose name I got from Facebook). It was incredibly effective.
I propose we do the same thing for every city council member in the country where Flock has been allowed to invade our privacy. Buy their data from Flock and any other online source for that matter. Find all of their comings and goings, list dates and times, trips to dr appointments, places they shop and eat, where they live, where their kids go to school, who visits their home, where they travel, etc. For them and their immediate families. If they are uncomfortable with all of that information being publically available, then good! Don’t allow Flock to make it available! The fact that all of that information is being collected and tracked by anybody, let alone profit-driven corporations that will use that data and sell that data by any legal means to gain a buck (and plenty less than legal ways) should be uncomfortable, even scary.
Also cut them down, though.
And piss on them as was previously suggested. Mut maybe use bear piss rather than your own. I think you can buy that amazon actually… Of all places.
Of course it’s great that she’s taken the effort to take a stand for something she believes in, while most people are just moaning about it on line, but while the style of delivery is shareable it’s not really how one communicates with the public or with public officials.
The only people who will think this is a “good speech” are the people who already believe what she does, when she’s really trying to reach everyone else.
For that reason the snarky witty basis isn’t really helpful. She also needs to reduce her pace by about two thirds.
The fact that the council won’t likely be swayed by her alone isn’t her problem. Her wit and the virality can bring other pressure beyond her own delivery.
And the pacing is likely attributable to the fact that public commentary is limited to a time constraint in these meetings. She had a lot to say and not a lot of time to say it in.
That’s true, there’s usually a time limit for statements from the public.
However, when you’re making a statement your primary objective is for your points to be received by your audience. Talking faster does not support that objective.
I don’t agree that witty snarky is the right way to get virality or traction, it’s too easy for the minds you’re trying to reach to disregard. Greta Thunberg demonstrated what a young female orator stating the obvious can achieve.
I don’t agree that there’s only a single prescribed method that everyone should attempt to emulate. This method was incisive and memorable. It drove the point home very effectively. She brought real world examples instead of just hypothetical fears. Her sarcastic delivery implied that the council’s position was gleefully evil and comfortable with authoritarian abuses, which should give them pause and make them consider at least how they’re being perceived, much less what their actual motivations are. And she offered real world consequences by mentioning their reelection. Greta can do it her way. This woman should continue being herself.
She achieved some virtue signaling responses that didn’t actually improve the issue from the side that was already pro and being called a sock puppet from the side that was con.
What Greta has achieved in modern times with her actions, not with speeches, is way more powerful.
The speech wasn’t for the officials, it was for the voters, young ones specifically. That’s why she mentions re-election at the end.
Everything I said applies to voters just the same. This type of thing only speaks to the people who already agree. Anyone who is ambivalent isn’t going to be motivated by witty snarky whiny voice.
In my experience, this kind is speech is very effective for people who already agree with you in principle, but aren’t mad/motivated enough to take action on the issue. I agree is probably not the most effective at changing minds, but as a kind of rallying call it works.
You must be old. This is how the younger generation communicates.
Well, I’m old enough to seem old to a 12 year old.
This is how every generation communicates until they’re old enough to learn how to communicate.
Motorola Solutions: motorolasolutions.com/…/license-plate-recognition…
Axon: www.axon.com/products/axon-outpost
Genetec: www.genetec.com/products/unified-security/autovu
That’s dope. Well done.
No notes.
The kids are all right.
Link is dead for me
VPN?
Me too no VPN
Who is the woman in the orange and why has she injected herself into the middle of the video?
That’s just kinda how tiktok and YouTube work. Algorithms love bright faces talking loudly and reacting to videos.
Her voice is extremely annoying. I’d probably be an ex-boyfriend too.