Pretty much the title. I certainly believe Trump, Maga, the Military, and the Police will, sooner or later, probably sooner, get around to at least attempting to deanonymize and round up online antifascists and leftists and imprison them. How organized and effective that attempt is I am less sure of.
To be very transparent, this is something I'm pretty sure I'd be on the hook for. I have a long log of anti trump, antifascist, left sentiments, and am 75% sure I'll be disappeared at some point in the next 4 years as I have no plans of shutting up. The only reason I'm not 100% sure is because of how expensive it would be. But hey, maybe it's less expensive than potentially losing power? So I don't know.
Never? Not likely? Maybe? Very? Extremely? Definitely?
Thoughts?
Unless you're doing actual organizing, unlikely. The DNC isn't friendly towards Leftist orgs either, though MAGA groups themselves may become more millitant.
get around to at least attempting to deanonymize and round up online antifascists
They already know exactly who you are. People dont understand how pervasive online surveilance and profiling is. AI makes it simple to compile dossiers on everyone.
Ah yes, as always, the ever-knowing magical AI. Because all the secrets of the universe can be aggregated using just few multiline prompts to the ChatGPT.
You're distrust of AI hype is fine, but you're missing the point. OP said AI makes it simple to compile dossiers on everyone, meaning it's now far less labor intensive to take all of the data being gathered by SIGINT and turn it into reports. The amount of labor required to build 10M dossiers on mostly impotent randos makes it completely unfeasible, but with generative AI being able to quickly summarize a dataset, suddenly we can have shitty, somewhat lossy dossiers on every moron shitposter.
I'm pretty sure the capabilities were there before LLMs and the LLMs don't add that much value relative to it's cost.
The capabilities to generate summaries? Yeah, that's probably true, I knew of AI that could summarize data into narrative years before the current LLM hype. I don't know the underlying tech behind those things I saw though. They could have been early LLMs, they could have been some other neural network. But it was definitely a machine learning solution.
The point that machine learning can reduce the effort to produce dossiers to the point of making millions of dossiers feasible still stands though.
Not chatGPT. But AIs are good at one single thing and that is pattern recognition. And there is a lot of data to train and use those AIs on. Decades of data from your PCs, phones and tablets is on NSA servers. And yes, the NSA did shit like recording you through your notebook camera or recording your phone calls with your first girlfriend.
AI will probably never replace human workers/engineers/artists/..., but sorting through your online history is exactly what AIs excel at.
Also Dragnet policies are used by the police for a long time now. This is pretty much just that. Imo the main question is more if they want to burn that data on this task, because once they do this some people will adjust and it will get harder to get new data.
I don't think it's very likely. Even if it was even remotely affordable or feasible he actually needs opposition to define himself and his base 'ruggedly independent' and as 'freedom fighters'.
If he's going to go after anyone at all I think it will be high profile people for maximum media impact.
It isn't November 2016 anymore. Trump has been president before and whatever you think of his first term, you already know (roughly) what tends to happen when he is president (if you are too young, there is a near-infinite amount of news articles, social media discussions, wiki articles where you can look it up). I somewhat understood fears like this in late 2016 when a Trump administration was an unprecedented phenomenon, but now?
But in 2016, he didn't know what he was doing. He didn't expect to win. It's very different this time around.
And when do you think he started to know what he was doing? 2017, 2018, 2019, never? If not in any of these years, then why would he know it in 2025?
the heritage foundation is surrounding trump with money and advisors so that they can finish the work that they started in this country in 1980. (they're the people who created project 2025)
they've been successful with other countries and that's taught them how to get things done within the frameworks of other governments and they've also been successful in this country with sympathetic administrations; so they have plenty of experience in making things happen.
The Supreme Court gave the office of the president full immunity for discharging duties of the office.
Online? No. Online disorganized leftists aren't actually leftists, they're leftist sympathizers. You need to be in a leftist org to actually be a leftist.
You're not a threat unless you're actually doing stuff.
Not likely. Trump doesn't even know what those words mean. Temporarily jailing them and protesters is likely a different story, though.
I don't think it's "Trump" thing, but the USA will probably start arresting people for the media they consume if a rapidly growing and sufficiently large portion of their citizenry spread and consume messaging they disagree with. It'll be a side-effect of losing the narrative war. I don't foresee it happening in the next 4 years.
I don't see the point in publicising it. From a PR perspective, "Posted illegal content using a platform frequented by terrorists" is less likely to meet resistance than "Commented🔻on Instagram". In fact, USA propaganda is already full of vagueties about people's online behaviour today. Usually in the form of reporting on foreign (enemy) policing as "Helpless teen (19) arrested (fined) for Tweet (Bomb-threat to head of state)".
Given the majority of the supreme court are constitutional literalists, I'm going to stake a claim on very unlikely. That is literally against the first amendment.
Now, let's say we live in some kind of bizaro land where you can be taken to court without the protection of the first amendment. (Difficult ti believe I know). You would still, hopefully, have a right to an attorney. If your case is high profile, or you have enough money, an organization like the aclu would help.
