BigSister – Why Surveillance Is Not Always the Enemy

Introduction

In the European collective memory, surveillance is synonymous with abuse. It is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes, repression, censorship, and the loss of freedom. The word itself triggers resistance. But in the digital reality of the 21st century, an uncomfortable question arises: is all surveillance truly an enemy – or have we confused the concept of surveillance with the concept of power?

BigSister is not an answer to fear. It is an answer to the absence of protection.

When the absence of surveillance means violence

The adult industry is one of the few sectors where 'freedom without surveillance' has been advocated for decades – and at the same time, one of those where abuse, violence, and exploitation are most systematically ignored. The paradox is obvious: where there is no structure, power does not disperse – it is seized by the strongest.

The absence of surveillance does not mean freedom. It means that the rules are written in the shadows, without accountability and without traceability. In such an environment, the most vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, and reporting abuse often means additional risk.

BigSister appears where the system is unwilling or unable to protect.

The difference between surveillance and authority

A key mistake in public debate is confusing surveillance with authority. Surveillance itself is not authority – authority is a question of who is surveilling, why, and to whom they are accountable.

BigSister is not a centralized power looking from the top down. It is a mechanism of community responsibility, where surveillance is not intended for punishment, but for preventing harm. Its goal is not to control bodies, but to control processes: transactions, agreements, time slots, recurring risk patterns.

In this sense, BigSister is more like a seatbelt than the police. Not to punish, but to reduce consequences.

Invisible, but present

The most effective surveillance is the one that is not in the foreground. BigSister is not a public display of data, ratings, or identities. It works in the background, with a minimal amount of information and a clear purpose: to detect red flags before harm occurs.

This means:

• detecting recurring risky behaviors,

• internally flagging problematic interactions,

• restricting access without public lynching,

• protecting workers without disclosing their identity.

Surveillance without spectacle. Without shaming. Without revenge.

Why BigSister is different from 'Big Brother'

George Orwell described surveillance that serves authority. BigSister, however, stems from the needs of the community. The difference is fundamental. BigBrother surveils to maintain power. BigSister surveils to distribute risk and protect the weaker.

In this model, surveillance is not a tool of domination, but a service. Something that the community demands because it knows that absolute freedom without safeguards does not exist. And that the price of complete invisibility is often not freedom, but violence that remains unreported.

Why the adult industry needs more, not less, structure

The adult industry is not dangerous because it is sexual. It is dangerous because it is unregulated, stigmatized, and pushed to the margins. Where there are no legitimate protection mechanisms, illegitimate ones develop.

BigSister is the answer to this void. Not as a moral police, but as a minimal infrastructure of trust, without which it is impossible to talk about free choice or autonomy.

Initiatives like Dobra Družba are not introducing surveillance because they trust the system, but because they can no longer trust the system without their own safeguards.

Freedom without safety is not freedom

The greatest illusion of liberal discourse is that freedom and surveillance are necessarily in conflict. In reality, freedom and uncontrolled power are in conflict. Surveillance that is transparent, limited, and accountable to the community is not an enemy of freedom – it is its condition.

BigSister does not promise a perfect world. It promises something much more important: that abuses will no longer be invisible, that risks will no longer be individualized, and that safety will no longer be a privilege, but a shared responsibility.

And perhaps this is precisely the kind of surveillance that Europe needs the courage to acknowledge.