3 ms·
Idlewords is arguing for legally enforced privacy rights, rather than consumer-led boycotts (or worse, non-organized individual picking and choosing of which pr
by earthboundkid 7y ago
Idlewords is arguing for legally enforced privacy rights, rather than consumer-led boycotts (or worse, non-organized individual picking and choosing of which privacy violations to tolerate).
- JadeNB 7y ago> Idlewords is arguing for legally enforced privacy rights, rather than consumer-led boycotts (or worse, non-organized individual picking and choosing of which privacy violations to tolerate). The context seems consistent with that being the intended thrust of the argument, but its literal wording (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19962410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19962410): > This is like saying in 1950 that companies will take the lead out of gasoline if we all stop driving. seems to claim, not just that enforced regulations rather than consumer-led boycotts were the right way to address the issue of leaded gasoline, but that boycotts wouldn't have worked. If your gloss is the correct one, then I find the argument much more plausible than a literal reading suggests.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 7y agoThanks, I genuinely wasn’t able to see that interpretation until I saw this, and instead took it in the literal sense you’re giving here.