>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

>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).