4 ms·

I am producing baking soda. Unfortunately it is also containing arsenic. But it is very popular baking soda and I am making a lot of money. Some people complain

by chewz 8y ago

I am producing baking soda. Unfortunately it is also containing arsenic. But it is very popular baking soda and I am making a lot of money. Some people complain so I make a pledge that one day I will change my production process to make my baking soda arsenic-free.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Is this an argument for tighter regulation of the internet? The only reason you can't get away with selling baking soda with arsenic is (quite rightly) because of food regulation.
- jrace 8y ago
  It is unfortunate that we need regulation to prevent people from doing what is ethically wrong. Ideally the internet would not need regulation, if only people cared more about doing whats right...and not what makes your shareholders rich.
  - moonshinefe 8y ago
    It is unfortunate. I remember the earlier days of the internet when regulation wasn't brought up like this constantly. I think the unfortunate reality is whenever there's money involved, certain players will win over and time and become gigantic and by the very nature of their being at the top, they are unethical. Naturally, the less ethical and more ruthless money makers win in the market if all other things are considered equal to their competitors.
JasonFruit 8y ago
If I understand your analogy, you're saying that privacy violations are like food-safety violations: they should be prevented by legislative action and government force. I think the analogy is flawed. When you die from poisoning, it's an irremediable situation; you can't just say, "I'll never do business with them again!" and fix it. Also, you have to eat something; you can't opt out of the whole market. Finally, it directly affects your physical safety, so that intentional disregard of food safety is akin to violence. Facebook's problems, and privacy violations in general, are different. It's not necessary to engage in mediated social interaction; you can opt out with no loss except convenience. There's no bodily harm, let alone death, so if you're burned once, you can simply never do business with them again. That means the market could fix this problem. That it hasn't says that there aren't enough people who agree that it is a problem, or that the cost is worth the benefit to them. In a case like that, not legislation but education is the solution.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > if you're burned once, you can simply never do business with them again. The problem is that avoiding doing business with them does not protect you from their behavior. > That means the market could fix this problem. Maybe, maybe not. But generally speaking, the free market cannot fix all problems, and particularly has an issue fixing problems that are imposed on people who already don't do business with the bad actor.
- svachalek 8y ago
  Once they've gathered information about you and sold it, you can't take it back. For most people living in western democracies, living with no privacy won't kill you but where is the guarantee your government and the corporations it empowers will always be so benign?
  - JasonFruit 8y ago
    I thought about mentioning that, but even under less liberal governments, the case where an invasion of privacy is fatal is pretty exceptional. I decided not to muddy my exposition with it.

by chewz 8y ago

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

Is this an argument for tighter regulation of the internet? The only reason you can't get away with selling baking soda with arsenic is (quite rightly) because of food regulation.

jrace 8y ago
It is unfortunate that we need regulation to prevent people from doing what is ethically wrong. Ideally the internet would not need regulation, if only people cared more about doing whats right...and not what makes your shareholders rich.
- moonshinefe 8y ago
  It is unfortunate. I remember the earlier days of the internet when regulation wasn't brought up like this constantly. I think the unfortunate reality is whenever there's money involved, certain players will win over and time and become gigantic and by the very nature of their being at the top, they are unethical. Naturally, the less ethical and more ruthless money makers win in the market if all other things are considered equal to their competitors.

JasonFruit 8y ago

If I understand your analogy, you're saying that privacy violations are like food-safety violations: they should be prevented by legislative action and government force. I think the analogy is flawed. When you die from poisoning, it's an irremediable situation; you can't just say, "I'll never do business with them again!" and fix it. Also, you have to eat something; you can't opt out of the whole market. Finally, it directly affects your physical safety, so that intentional disregard of food safety is akin to violence. Facebook's problems, and privacy violations in general, are different. It's not necessary to engage in mediated social interaction; you can opt out with no loss except convenience. There's no bodily harm, let alone death, so if you're burned once, you can simply never do business with them again. That means the market could fix this problem. That it hasn't says that there aren't enough people who agree that it is a problem, or that the cost is worth the benefit to them. In a case like that, not legislation but education is the solution.

JohnFen 8y ago
> if you're burned once, you can simply never do business with them again. The problem is that avoiding doing business with them does not protect you from their behavior. > That means the market could fix this problem. Maybe, maybe not. But generally speaking, the free market cannot fix all problems, and particularly has an issue fixing problems that are imposed on people who already don't do business with the bad actor.
svachalek 8y ago
Once they've gathered information about you and sold it, you can't take it back. For most people living in western democracies, living with no privacy won't kill you but where is the guarantee your government and the corporations it empowers will always be so benign?
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  I thought about mentioning that, but even under less liberal governments, the case where an invasion of privacy is fatal is pretty exceptional. I decided not to muddy my exposition with it.