You need to get the next draft under 1,000 words. You don't need all the bot-like background information. Your idea is that state privacy regulation doesn't effectively prevent federal government acquisition of available consumer data, This idea is largely correct, but beyond reiteration of the danger to "privacy" from "surveillance," there's not much more for the reader to gain by close reading.
Let's try a draft that uses links rather than scattering URLs in the text, that provides higher-value references for the reader (to actual statutes, for example, rather than to"web content" about law), and that offers specific technical and social phenomena that the reader can learn about while also learning what, from your point of view, they mean. Perhaps we can gain insight into how a regulatory system comprehensive enough to effect the environmental harms you describe could work, and how the politics of enacting it might be arranged. Any one of those would probably be a route to significant improvement over the current draft.
|