11 ms·

Why is it shocking? The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it's citizen: - Off putting images printed on cigarette

Why is it shocking? The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it's citizen: - Off putting images printed on cigarette packages - Warning stickers put on microwaves to prevent people from drying their house cats in the microwave - Forcing speed meters in cars - Forcing head lights of cars to be turned on after a certain hour of the day - Lot's of "UX" regulations in casinos and other addictive establishments - Licenses to sell alcohol which basically influences where people can find and shop alcohol - Recently the UK has drafted a law which prohibits supermarkets to stock and display addictive unhealthy food close to the checkout tilts (Mars, Snickers, fat crisps, etc.) Why should it be different on the internet? Social media has a damaging and addictive negative impact on society, so it need's to be regulated to protect citizens from the exploitative patterns which these companies purposefully implement to hook vulnerable people into their system. I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of "law free" place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?

yostrovs 7y ago
Many of us find most of your list disturbing as is. So we certainly don't use it as evidence that we'd like it to grow longer.
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do you find disturbing exactly? That people who drive a vehicle which is capable of speeds that can easily cause death to passengers and other vehicles around them need to have a device mounted which visibly gives them an indication of how fast they are actually travelling? Or do you find it disturbing that kids who don't know better yet are meant to be told that if they start smoking cigarettes, which are very addictive, can cause them to die 20 years earlier rather than telling them that it is "cool" which is what the ad industry did before? Maybe from a complete selfish point of view I can see how it's annoying that I cannot buy alcohol just at any time of the day wherever I want, but the government is not being elected to act selfishly. They have a responsibility towards their electorate, and if something is causing people to get depressed, harm themselves and become unhappy, unproductive and a burden on the state, then it is the governments duty to implement regulation which can help prevent from falling into those damaging habits.
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    You probably longed for stricter parents when growing up. You still are. I'm assuming you're an adult.
    - gerbilly 7y ago
      No, and I didn't long to live in a race to the bottom dystopia either.
    - peterpost2 7y ago
      Or you could just respond to the man's question? - instead of responding childish
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    How about the law saying it's illegal to put candy bars in the checkout aisle? When does it stop? You can't just keep doing this forever it's literally insane. How big does the books of donts have to be before we are all criminals? Saying it's the government's job to regulate our lives to give us less bad habits is also an opinion, not some objective fact like you state either. Be careful about projecting your feelings and wants onto others, because once you rope the government into it the people that don't share your view are being trampled on with no recourse.
    - dustinmoris 7y ago
      It's not projecting my personal feelings. The government has the responsibility to keep society productive. If something is having a wide spread effect on a society's productiveness, then it's their responsibility to take action. If you disagree with this, then you basically oppose the idea of having elected leaders who are responsible for looking after the greater good of society. What is the alternative though? Non elected leaders, anarchy?
      - acollins1331 7y ago
        Again, you are spouting opinions as facts. "The government has the responsibility to keep society productive" find me the floating rock that shows that is an objective truth. And even if I DID give you that as an objective truth, it still is very far from your previous assertion that it's the government's job to keep people from falling into bad habits.
- saiprashanth93 7y ago
  While others find it as a reasonable middle ground between banning things outright(which never works anyway) and letting everyone do whatever they want even if it harms others. You are living in a society after all.
  - exergy 7y ago
    It's a wonder to me why more middle-ground approaches such as what you stated don't get proposed more often.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Because nobody ever got virtue points from their "base" for proposing a middle ground.
- sarbaz 7y ago
  One of the rights we explicitly give the government in the Constitution is to regulate our trade and commerce. From that lens all these regulations make sense, including the social media regulations proposed.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Check your source. I believe the constitutional power is to regulate interstate commerce. There is a conceptual difference (or there used to be). Traditionally, this power isn't supposed to apply to all aspects of the market -- just those aspects conceptually bounded by trade that is between states.
    - sarbaz 7y ago
      Yes, but you're selling your attention to Facebook across state boundaries (in 49/50 states). But my more serious answer would be that everybody is harmed by inconsistent trade rules between states. It just makes doing business harder. The commerce clause was thought up when considering a much less centralized nation composed of many isolated markets. Today even the much less tightly bound EU has a pretty strong level of trade uniformity, enforced centrally. So I think that everyone benefits from a relaxed view of the commerce clause, and that this isn't a real infringement on our rights.
roland35 7y ago
That is a good list... I think people think of social media as different since it is a computer program/app instead of a physical product but really there is no difference legally or philosophically!
Aengeuad 7y ago
Don't forget ingredient lists, nutritional information labels, and the newer reference intake labels. Take a look at any alcoholic beverage to see what happens when such labels are voluntary. Material Safety Data Sheets is another regulation that manufacturers are forced to follow but is pretty damn useful for end consumers also.
- exergy 7y ago
  There is a certain, rather vocal, section of HN that seems prone to having a knee-jerk reaction against all regulatory behaviour. They seem to pop up a lot in threads like these, or those related to free speech etc. I see the case for minimising regulations in some contexts, but there are definitely strong cases for the government to come down with the force of an anvil in other contexts.
  - cam_l 7y ago
    It's kind of funny, for a bunch of people who ostensibly look for edge cases all day. Then they want simple one case fits all solution to a complex or intractable problem (and usually the same solution, regardless of the problem).
  - Clubber 7y ago
    In an ideal world, all government regulations are well thought out and limited to things that are minimally invasive to the citizen, and still allow the citizen to be free to make a choice. Nutrition labels are a good example of this. In the real world, many regulations are influenced by corporations to serve their own interests. The food pyramid is an example of this. Anyone aware of the latter should be skeptical of any proposed regulation, especially in the US. Is it in the best interest of the populace, or was it influenced to be in the best interest of a lobbying organization?
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  > Take a look at any alcoholic beverage to see what happens when such labels are voluntary. Amen. I did keto for a couple of years and was shocked at the amount of carbs and added sugar.
amelius 7y ago
Also speed regulations in the form of net neutrality.
koboll 7y ago
I think it would be great for someone to introduce well-crafted legislation, formed with the input of smart, savvy, educated, and Big Tech-hostile technologists, that establishes some kind of standards board to review and levy fines for things like dark patterns. This legislation is not that. It is one legislator's policy team throwing darts wildly, with the goal of generating hype for their member, not actually getting anything passed into law.
- TheBranca18 7y ago
  This is why governmental bodies need to rely on experts in various fields. There is no way we should require our politicians to know everything about everything, but they should be smart enough to recognize what they don't know and become educated and informed. I feel your last statement is sadly, 100% accurate.
delhanty 7y ago
And flouride in the water [0], maybe good for your teeth, health effects on the rest of the body unclear ... law of unintended consequences and all that. Folic acid fortification of flour too [1]. Protects against neural-tube defects, health effects on aging adults less clear. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_the_Unit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_fortification#Folate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_fortification#Folate
toomuchequate 7y ago
>I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of "law free" place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere? Violent crime doesnt happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. And that weirdly isnt huge, at least in my life. Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  It's not that "government makes better decisions than individuals" it's that unorganized individuals do not have the power to change the behavior of large organizations that are out to manipulate the public. Corporations manipulate individuals and entire populations by only providing the means for certain actions to be taken, by using propaganda, and in the case of UI, preying on the impulses of individuals. By contrast, state power in this instance is exercised after deliberate thought, and in theory, in the interest of the people. This isn't the thoughtful and well informed decisions of individuals vs that of the state. It is that of our weakest, most impulsive moments vs making an informed decision before allowing products to be sold or made available.
- TheBranca18 7y ago
  >Violent crime doesn't happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. I couldn't disagree more with these statements. Human and sex trafficking occur through the net, hell you can hire hitmen! Then there's the grooming of underage kids, etc. To say only fraud happens on the net just seems wild. >Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes. This is a pretty general statement. What specifically in the proposed law are you against?
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    All those crimes happen offline, though. Internet is just a communication channel.
- JeremyBanks 7y ago
tomjen3 7y ago
That assumes that the government should have a say in those things, and that people don't accept the fundamental axiom that the internet is different from everything else.

yostrovs 7y ago

Many of us find most of your list disturbing as is. So we certainly don't use it as evidence that we'd like it to grow longer.

dustinmoris 7y ago
Out of curiosity, what do you find disturbing exactly? That people who drive a vehicle which is capable of speeds that can easily cause death to passengers and other vehicles around them need to have a device mounted which visibly gives them an indication of how fast they are actually travelling? Or do you find it disturbing that kids who don't know better yet are meant to be told that if they start smoking cigarettes, which are very addictive, can cause them to die 20 years earlier rather than telling them that it is "cool" which is what the ad industry did before? Maybe from a complete selfish point of view I can see how it's annoying that I cannot buy alcohol just at any time of the day wherever I want, but the government is not being elected to act selfishly. They have a responsibility towards their electorate, and if something is causing people to get depressed, harm themselves and become unhappy, unproductive and a burden on the state, then it is the governments duty to implement regulation which can help prevent from falling into those damaging habits.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  You probably longed for stricter parents when growing up. You still are. I'm assuming you're an adult.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    No, and I didn't long to live in a race to the bottom dystopia either.
  - peterpost2 7y ago
    Or you could just respond to the man's question? - instead of responding childish
- acollins1331 7y ago
  How about the law saying it's illegal to put candy bars in the checkout aisle? When does it stop? You can't just keep doing this forever it's literally insane. How big does the books of donts have to be before we are all criminals? Saying it's the government's job to regulate our lives to give us less bad habits is also an opinion, not some objective fact like you state either. Be careful about projecting your feelings and wants onto others, because once you rope the government into it the people that don't share your view are being trampled on with no recourse.
  - dustinmoris 7y ago
    It's not projecting my personal feelings. The government has the responsibility to keep society productive. If something is having a wide spread effect on a society's productiveness, then it's their responsibility to take action. If you disagree with this, then you basically oppose the idea of having elected leaders who are responsible for looking after the greater good of society. What is the alternative though? Non elected leaders, anarchy?
    - acollins1331 7y ago
      Again, you are spouting opinions as facts. "The government has the responsibility to keep society productive" find me the floating rock that shows that is an objective truth. And even if I DID give you that as an objective truth, it still is very far from your previous assertion that it's the government's job to keep people from falling into bad habits.
saiprashanth93 7y ago
While others find it as a reasonable middle ground between banning things outright(which never works anyway) and letting everyone do whatever they want even if it harms others. You are living in a society after all.
- exergy 7y ago
  It's a wonder to me why more middle-ground approaches such as what you stated don't get proposed more often.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Because nobody ever got virtue points from their "base" for proposing a middle ground.
sarbaz 7y ago
One of the rights we explicitly give the government in the Constitution is to regulate our trade and commerce. From that lens all these regulations make sense, including the social media regulations proposed.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Check your source. I believe the constitutional power is to regulate interstate commerce. There is a conceptual difference (or there used to be). Traditionally, this power isn't supposed to apply to all aspects of the market -- just those aspects conceptually bounded by trade that is between states.
  - sarbaz 7y ago
    Yes, but you're selling your attention to Facebook across state boundaries (in 49/50 states). But my more serious answer would be that everybody is harmed by inconsistent trade rules between states. It just makes doing business harder. The commerce clause was thought up when considering a much less centralized nation composed of many isolated markets. Today even the much less tightly bound EU has a pretty strong level of trade uniformity, enforced centrally. So I think that everyone benefits from a relaxed view of the commerce clause, and that this isn't a real infringement on our rights.

roland35 7y ago

That is a good list... I think people think of social media as different since it is a computer program/app instead of a physical product but really there is no difference legally or philosophically!

Aengeuad 7y ago

Don't forget ingredient lists, nutritional information labels, and the newer reference intake labels. Take a look at any alcoholic beverage to see what happens when such labels are voluntary. Material Safety Data Sheets is another regulation that manufacturers are forced to follow but is pretty damn useful for end consumers also.

exergy 7y ago
There is a certain, rather vocal, section of HN that seems prone to having a knee-jerk reaction against all regulatory behaviour. They seem to pop up a lot in threads like these, or those related to free speech etc. I see the case for minimising regulations in some contexts, but there are definitely strong cases for the government to come down with the force of an anvil in other contexts.
- cam_l 7y ago
  It's kind of funny, for a bunch of people who ostensibly look for edge cases all day. Then they want simple one case fits all solution to a complex or intractable problem (and usually the same solution, regardless of the problem).
- Clubber 7y ago
  In an ideal world, all government regulations are well thought out and limited to things that are minimally invasive to the citizen, and still allow the citizen to be free to make a choice. Nutrition labels are a good example of this. In the real world, many regulations are influenced by corporations to serve their own interests. The food pyramid is an example of this. Anyone aware of the latter should be skeptical of any proposed regulation, especially in the US. Is it in the best interest of the populace, or was it influenced to be in the best interest of a lobbying organization?
blaser-waffle 7y ago
> Take a look at any alcoholic beverage to see what happens when such labels are voluntary. Amen. I did keto for a couple of years and was shocked at the amount of carbs and added sugar.

amelius 7y ago

Also speed regulations in the form of net neutrality.

koboll 7y ago

I think it would be great for someone to introduce well-crafted legislation, formed with the input of smart, savvy, educated, and Big Tech-hostile technologists, that establishes some kind of standards board to review and levy fines for things like dark patterns. This legislation is not that. It is one legislator's policy team throwing darts wildly, with the goal of generating hype for their member, not actually getting anything passed into law.

TheBranca18 7y ago
This is why governmental bodies need to rely on experts in various fields. There is no way we should require our politicians to know everything about everything, but they should be smart enough to recognize what they don't know and become educated and informed. I feel your last statement is sadly, 100% accurate.

delhanty 7y ago

And flouride in the water [0], maybe good for your teeth, health effects on the rest of the body unclear ... law of unintended consequences and all that. Folic acid fortification of flour too [1]. Protects against neural-tube defects, health effects on aging adults less clear. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_the_Unit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_fortification#Folate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_fortification#Folate

toomuchequate 7y ago

>I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of "law free" place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere? Violent crime doesnt happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. And that weirdly isnt huge, at least in my life. Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.

tehjoker 7y ago
It's not that "government makes better decisions than individuals" it's that unorganized individuals do not have the power to change the behavior of large organizations that are out to manipulate the public. Corporations manipulate individuals and entire populations by only providing the means for certain actions to be taken, by using propaganda, and in the case of UI, preying on the impulses of individuals. By contrast, state power in this instance is exercised after deliberate thought, and in theory, in the interest of the people. This isn't the thoughtful and well informed decisions of individuals vs that of the state. It is that of our weakest, most impulsive moments vs making an informed decision before allowing products to be sold or made available.
TheBranca18 7y ago
>Violent crime doesn't happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. I couldn't disagree more with these statements. Human and sex trafficking occur through the net, hell you can hire hitmen! Then there's the grooming of underage kids, etc. To say only fraud happens on the net just seems wild. >Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes. This is a pretty general statement. What specifically in the proposed law are you against?
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  All those crimes happen offline, though. Internet is just a communication channel.
JeremyBanks 7y ago

tomjen3 7y ago

That assumes that the government should have a say in those things, and that people don't accept the fundamental axiom that the internet is different from everything else.