> Sure, but I am tired of there being two set of rules for those with power and those without it.

Can you elaborate on how this project is going to impact that? What change do you expect will come about from it?

IIRC a lot of politicians in the US have been very anti-gay, until a family member they cared about came out as gay. Suddenly, and only then did they start to care about human rights.

Ideally, this will result in more politicians being upset about needless ~~user~~ human hostility. And perhaps a few of them will understand the implications of why it's bad.

Go walk around any major city; we'll wait. You were just recorded and analyzed by humans and software countless times. Did you do anything that could be misinterpreted as illegal, antisocial or even just different? Are you prepared to answer for it strangers who wield the might of the state? Share it all publicly? Prove you're not guilty of anything or justify your lifestyle choices? How does that make you feel?

To me this is an example of making those on the other side experience the same thing. The good ones will find some empathy and affect positive change; even the bad ones will make the right decisions in naked self interest.

It was an honest question, and no, your implication is not obvious to me. Let's assume best intent instead of defaulting to "no, you."

In what way has the Belgian parlament participated in bringing about the surveillance ad-industry or the american tech oligarchy?

If anything European politicians have struggled against the surveillance monopolies and enforced more online privacy protection than any other leaders on the planet. You can argue the effort hasn't been sufficiently successful and you're probably right about that.

five eyes had buy in all around in EU.

European council still forces all government to buy exclusively from Microsoft despite a whole documentary and outcry about it. the IT mamager is now even further promoted.