4 ms·

I hate pollution as much as anyone but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s paper mill launch is being censored by the state. I hate ca

I hate pollution as much as anyone but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s paper mill launch is being censored by the state. I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. I hate sex trafficking as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s Russian bride catalog launch is being censored by the state. —— I guess my point is that your broad objection to government interference is completely meritless without considering the specific harms and benefits under discussion. The problem with surveillance is that the harms are distributed and delayed. Meanwhile Facebook does everything it can to obfuscate what these harms might even be.

logicchains 7y ago
>I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. Do you realise how absurd you sound? Have you any idea of how tragic it is for a family to lose a loved one to cancer, how many people millions of people have died unnecessarily from smoking? Comparing Facebook to that sounds completely out of touch with reality, unless you can point me to the millions of people killed by Facebook.
- giornogiovanna 7y ago
  No one suggested that surveillance is as bad as cancer. All that was said is that blocking Facebook dating has a similar effect on surveillance (in kind, not in degree) as banning tobacco has on cancer.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    Is that even true? Stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer by like over 90%, blocking Facebook doesn't change the fact that the Chinese and American spy agencies are still doing everything they can to record all your emails and personal communication. Degree matters, because the harm from censorship and restricting people's choices is a matter of degree, and if the harm avoided by the ban is a lower degree then it ends up as a net negative.
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      If it wasn't for companies like Facebook using and thus requesting that information to begin with, it would be a hell of a lot more difficult for American and Chinese agencies to get your data.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Nobody is going to suffer any noticeable or concrete harms because Facebook launch a dating site of all things. The reaction here is wildly out of proportion to the scale of the problem; assuming there's any problem at all (everyone with a Facebook profile made one, they wanted to be there, so there isn't).
logicchains 7y ago
>The problem with surveillance is that the harms are distributed and delayed. Meanwhile Facebook does everything it can to obfuscate what these harms might even be. The harms of regulation are also distributed and delayed. The Backpage.com sex workers who were selling their services online have to go back to the danger of working the streets as a consequence of new online sex trafficing laws. People previously buying drugs safely online now have to go back to the streets, with dangerous dealers and worse infrastructure for testing drug safety. GDP grows a little slower, nobody notices for a while, until a couple decades later the standards of living in that country are lower than their neighbours and what they could have otherwise been. Some people miss out on meeting the love of their life who they might otherwise have met on Facebook Dating. It's not enough to consider the benefits and harms of the thing you're considering banning, you also need to consider the harms of the ban itself, and of creating the political infrastructure to enforce the ban, that could be turned against you the moment a far-right government wins an election (may I remind you that the People's National Front won 33% of the vote at the last French election).
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  The harm of not allowing Facebook dating while it fails to meet privacy regulations is that people have to use alternative dating services that do meet privacy regulations. Social harm: nothing. The implication that any government ban is bad, because fascists, is silly. The concept that some bans have net negative consequences is fine, but there is nothing to suggest that is the case here.

logicchains 7y ago

>I hate cancer as much as anyone, but it’s hard to see how it might be a good thing that someone’s tobacco advertising is being censored by the state. Do you realise how absurd you sound? Have you any idea of how tragic it is for a family to lose a loved one to cancer, how many people millions of people have died unnecessarily from smoking? Comparing Facebook to that sounds completely out of touch with reality, unless you can point me to the millions of people killed by Facebook.

giornogiovanna 7y ago
No one suggested that surveillance is as bad as cancer. All that was said is that blocking Facebook dating has a similar effect on surveillance (in kind, not in degree) as banning tobacco has on cancer.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Is that even true? Stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer by like over 90%, blocking Facebook doesn't change the fact that the Chinese and American spy agencies are still doing everything they can to record all your emails and personal communication. Degree matters, because the harm from censorship and restricting people's choices is a matter of degree, and if the harm avoided by the ban is a lower degree then it ends up as a net negative.
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    If it wasn't for companies like Facebook using and thus requesting that information to begin with, it would be a hell of a lot more difficult for American and Chinese agencies to get your data.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Nobody is going to suffer any noticeable or concrete harms because Facebook launch a dating site of all things. The reaction here is wildly out of proportion to the scale of the problem; assuming there's any problem at all (everyone with a Facebook profile made one, they wanted to be there, so there isn't).

logicchains 7y ago

>The problem with surveillance is that the harms are distributed and delayed. Meanwhile Facebook does everything it can to obfuscate what these harms might even be. The harms of regulation are also distributed and delayed. The Backpage.com sex workers who were selling their services online have to go back to the danger of working the streets as a consequence of new online sex trafficing laws. People previously buying drugs safely online now have to go back to the streets, with dangerous dealers and worse infrastructure for testing drug safety. GDP grows a little slower, nobody notices for a while, until a couple decades later the standards of living in that country are lower than their neighbours and what they could have otherwise been. Some people miss out on meeting the love of their life who they might otherwise have met on Facebook Dating. It's not enough to consider the benefits and harms of the thing you're considering banning, you also need to consider the harms of the ban itself, and of creating the political infrastructure to enforce the ban, that could be turned against you the moment a far-right government wins an election (may I remind you that the People's National Front won 33% of the vote at the last French election).

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
The harm of not allowing Facebook dating while it fails to meet privacy regulations is that people have to use alternative dating services that do meet privacy regulations. Social harm: nothing. The implication that any government ban is bad, because fascists, is silly. The concept that some bans have net negative consequences is fine, but there is nothing to suggest that is the case here.