alt Hacker News>The submitted article is about how they've achieved results
"They" meaning just Wisconsinites. The only political point I can find with a quick skim of the article is
>“There are well-documented concerns about how this company operates and uses its technology to violate people’s Fourth Amendment rights [against unreasonable searches],”
which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
I think you're missing the point. A "stance" is passive. I'm talking about activism, grassroots organizing, protests, political action. That's why I called it a "hotbed". A stance must be pushed forcefully to overturn the status quo.
> It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
> which is not what I would call a progressive political stance. If anything, it's conservative in the literal sense, of maintaining existing political institutions in their present state. It'd be more progressive (again, in the literal sense) to want to embrace more unrestricted surveillance.
1) The word "progressive" has multiple meanings. Your overly "literal" interpretation is not particularly useful in the political context.
2) The Flock cameras were already in place, so getting them removed is "progressive" even under your odd interpretation. But I don't even want to argue semantics. That seems like a silly argument to me.