3 ms·

> Your dismissal is not a counterargument. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss. I was trying to say that if your conclusion/mechanism to enact change depends on

> Your dismissal is not a counterargument. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss. I was trying to say that if your conclusion/mechanism to enact change depends on the success of convincing individual people do take action, it is unlikely to succeed for these reasons: - People converse slowly, especially on awkward topics like privacy. Opinions change slowly. - Propaganda and willingness of huge corporations to try to alter public opinion is huge, growing and already very intense. There is little historical analogue for it because so much power is concentrated so tightly now, with tools that completely change the balance of power (like AI, big data analytics, etc). > They may or may not work every time. Right. But we only have 1 shot at this and it needs to work. Our systems have already failed and our society is suffering because of it. Our government is not stable, our emotions are proudly directly manipulated by corporations, and we are hurting because of it. We must regulate because we cannot afford future losses of this magnitude.

JoshTriplett 8y ago
> - People converse slowly, especially on awkward topics like privacy. Opinions change slowly. And yet you're suggesting government regulation that moves more quickly, which implies that the government shouldn't wait that conversation and consensus to happen. (Leaving aside whether the government should do it even if people do support it, it certainly seems even worse to do it if there isn't such a consensus.) > But we only have 1 shot at this and it needs to work. You are presuming agreement with your premise. And you are furthermore presuming that the resulting regulation will work, and will not cause worse damage. (And where does "only have one shot at this" come from, here?) "The government should exert control over one of the most popular communications mediums" is a terrifying proposition, with the potential to support a huge amount of damage. I don't think it's a given that that damage would be less than the problem it's trying to solve.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  > And yet you're suggesting government regulation that moves more quickly, which implies that the government shouldn't wait that conversation and consensus to happen. That's right. If the government waits for a consensus, it will never arrive. No action will be taken and society will crumble. > (Leaving aside whether the government should do it even if people do support it, it certainly seems even worse to do it if there isn't such a consensus.) Why does it seem worse? The entire premise of not having a full democracy is that sometimes the people are not capable of determining what will help the country prosper in 20-50 years. We elect a body of smart people to help set these courses. It seems obvious and built-in to the system that the government must occasionally pass unpopular legislation. > You are presuming agreement with your premise. This is all past-tense though. All of this has already happened, is fact now, and so I feel 100% comfortable stating things that agree with history, as fact that agrees with my points. We have already lost our democracy and a lack of regulation is very clearly at fault, both in electoral law and in tech regulation. > And you are furthermore presuming that the resulting regulation will work, and will not cause worse damage I will happily invite studies on this. But there is significant work already that shows that power corrupts, that greed has no end, that we live in a tragedy of the commons where unrestricted markets do not produce optimal outputs for the population. > I don't think it's a given that that damage would be less than the problem it's trying to solve. Given the absolutely immense damage that has already occurred, I disagree. I think it is a given that regulation would solve far more problems than it would 'cause'.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > If the government waits for a consensus, it will never arrive. I didn't say "unanimous", I said "consensus". > as fact that agrees with my points. You are jumping from a set of events that took place to presuming what specific action should occur in response. The former are facts, the latter requires actual arguments and support. > there is significant work already that shows that power corrupts On that we agree. Which leads me to entirely different conclusions. I don't especially want to pursue this further; I don't think any new arguments are likely to arise.

JoshTriplett 8y ago

> - People converse slowly, especially on awkward topics like privacy. Opinions change slowly. And yet you're suggesting government regulation that moves more quickly, which implies that the government shouldn't wait that conversation and consensus to happen. (Leaving aside whether the government should do it even if people do support it, it certainly seems even worse to do it if there isn't such a consensus.) > But we only have 1 shot at this and it needs to work. You are presuming agreement with your premise. And you are furthermore presuming that the resulting regulation will work, and will not cause worse damage. (And where does "only have one shot at this" come from, here?) "The government should exert control over one of the most popular communications mediums" is a terrifying proposition, with the potential to support a huge amount of damage. I don't think it's a given that that damage would be less than the problem it's trying to solve.

whatislovecraft 8y ago
> And yet you're suggesting government regulation that moves more quickly, which implies that the government shouldn't wait that conversation and consensus to happen. That's right. If the government waits for a consensus, it will never arrive. No action will be taken and society will crumble. > (Leaving aside whether the government should do it even if people do support it, it certainly seems even worse to do it if there isn't such a consensus.) Why does it seem worse? The entire premise of not having a full democracy is that sometimes the people are not capable of determining what will help the country prosper in 20-50 years. We elect a body of smart people to help set these courses. It seems obvious and built-in to the system that the government must occasionally pass unpopular legislation. > You are presuming agreement with your premise. This is all past-tense though. All of this has already happened, is fact now, and so I feel 100% comfortable stating things that agree with history, as fact that agrees with my points. We have already lost our democracy and a lack of regulation is very clearly at fault, both in electoral law and in tech regulation. > And you are furthermore presuming that the resulting regulation will work, and will not cause worse damage I will happily invite studies on this. But there is significant work already that shows that power corrupts, that greed has no end, that we live in a tragedy of the commons where unrestricted markets do not produce optimal outputs for the population. > I don't think it's a given that that damage would be less than the problem it's trying to solve. Given the absolutely immense damage that has already occurred, I disagree. I think it is a given that regulation would solve far more problems than it would 'cause'.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > If the government waits for a consensus, it will never arrive. I didn't say "unanimous", I said "consensus". > as fact that agrees with my points. You are jumping from a set of events that took place to presuming what specific action should occur in response. The former are facts, the latter requires actual arguments and support. > there is significant work already that shows that power corrupts On that we agree. Which leads me to entirely different conclusions. I don't especially want to pursue this further; I don't think any new arguments are likely to arise.