6 ms·

I suppose there are both philosophical and pragmatic reasons for the current situation: 1. Philosophical - you don't want to get the threat of physical force i

I suppose there are both philosophical and pragmatic reasons for the current situation: 1. Philosophical - you don't want to get the threat of physical force involved unless there is a very very good reason for doing so. That is, you don't want to make things illegal. So we forbid outright lying and fraud, openly misleading customers, but allow things that you describe. If you have a private online platform, why should you not be allowed to or be compelled to moderate its content? Yes, tech companies will try to maximize user engagement, but what else should they be trying to maximize? It is up to the rest of society to develop a proper culture and information hygiene to shape their demand, and tech companies will adapt. It can develop organically and passed from generation to generation, or you can try to expedite the process through schools, media and other mechanisms that exist in a society. 2. Practical - people tend to get interested by forbidden things, and they seem to like their biases. In the Soviet Union, for example, perhaps most people were fascinated by the Hollywood movies of the 70s and the 80s, and even the way the Western brands were being advertised. They seemed 'cooler' to the Soviet products that were mostly devoid of marketing. Try to eliminate most biases, and people will vote with their feet. Arguably a better approach is to allow things, but in good faith educate people on how to best deal with them and why that is the right way of dealing with them. Same way a lot of parents today would explain to their children why they should stay away from cigarettes, for example, or wash their hands before having food.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
I don't think there's anything reasonable about either of these: 1. Are the freedoms of corporations to act without the coercion of the state more important than the freedom of citizens to act without the subtle but effective coercion of corporate persuasion? The case for individual freedom doesn't always imply the absence of action by the state. 2. Would restricting manipulative practices by businesses really lead to more businesses exploring those practices? That may be the case in restricting consumer choices but would it also be true for corporate behavior? I'm not so sure.
- agent008t 6y ago
  Corporations are just voluntary associations of people, are they not? It seems strange to allow something for an individual, but to forbid groups of people to associate with each other and carry out the same activity. I also think that calling persuasion 'coercion' is misleading. Coercion implies the threat of force or violence. You and your family still have the choice of switching off your TV, not using facebook or twitter, living your life as you want. Assuming you can live in a community of like-minded people such that there are few social costs of doing so for you and your family. I would like to see more such communities, especially among people working in tech. Restricting some practices by businesses would lead to foreign businesses and cultures becoming more attractive to consumers.
  - LocalH 6y ago
    When corporations grow above a certain size (the exact size of which is for another discussion), they tend to gain power against the individual. I'm not sure which is worse - powerful government, or powerful corporation. Both serve their own interests ahead of individual liberty, and collectively it means that people are less free and more beholden to corporate interests. I don't want to put so many restrictions on small business, because they're more directly driven by individuals (although if their behavior starts having a significant negative impact on individuals, then perhaps that can be investigated). Small business has far less power to negatively impact individuals when compared to multi-billion-dollar multinational organizations. I believe that society should favor and protect the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the large corporation. Without those individuals, society is useless. Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that society far too often sticks its teeth in where it doesn't belong, and won't bite down where they'd actually be useful. Your last sentence is honestly a copout (not on your part personally, but in general as an intellectual idea). That basically embodies a race to the bottom, as countries around the world erode freedom, and the rest of the world "harmonizes" so as not to be disadvantaged on the world stage. You see this now with the current copyright situation. It's kind of the same idea as the GPL protecting the greater freedom of software by restricting some of the freedoms that a developer may wish to have. Many similar arguments can apply too, as for example I've heard it said "GPL's restrictions will just push people to use less-restrictive licenses" That may be somewhat true, but there are also people who value the greater freedom more than their personal freedom to use the software in a non-free manner. Note that this isn't an endorsement of GPL over other licenses, just a parallel to be drawn that is somewhat relevant to HN.
pjc50 6y ago
> It is up to the rest of society to develop a proper culture Just as the environmentalists say that you can't really throw things away because there is no "away", increasingly there is no "rest of society" that exists completely outside online culture. Especially in the year we've all been quarantined inside.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago

I don't think there's anything reasonable about either of these: 1. Are the freedoms of corporations to act without the coercion of the state more important than the freedom of citizens to act without the subtle but effective coercion of corporate persuasion? The case for individual freedom doesn't always imply the absence of action by the state. 2. Would restricting manipulative practices by businesses really lead to more businesses exploring those practices? That may be the case in restricting consumer choices but would it also be true for corporate behavior? I'm not so sure.

agent008t 6y ago
Corporations are just voluntary associations of people, are they not? It seems strange to allow something for an individual, but to forbid groups of people to associate with each other and carry out the same activity. I also think that calling persuasion 'coercion' is misleading. Coercion implies the threat of force or violence. You and your family still have the choice of switching off your TV, not using facebook or twitter, living your life as you want. Assuming you can live in a community of like-minded people such that there are few social costs of doing so for you and your family. I would like to see more such communities, especially among people working in tech. Restricting some practices by businesses would lead to foreign businesses and cultures becoming more attractive to consumers.
- LocalH 6y ago
  When corporations grow above a certain size (the exact size of which is for another discussion), they tend to gain power against the individual. I'm not sure which is worse - powerful government, or powerful corporation. Both serve their own interests ahead of individual liberty, and collectively it means that people are less free and more beholden to corporate interests. I don't want to put so many restrictions on small business, because they're more directly driven by individuals (although if their behavior starts having a significant negative impact on individuals, then perhaps that can be investigated). Small business has far less power to negatively impact individuals when compared to multi-billion-dollar multinational organizations. I believe that society should favor and protect the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the large corporation. Without those individuals, society is useless. Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that society far too often sticks its teeth in where it doesn't belong, and won't bite down where they'd actually be useful. Your last sentence is honestly a copout (not on your part personally, but in general as an intellectual idea). That basically embodies a race to the bottom, as countries around the world erode freedom, and the rest of the world "harmonizes" so as not to be disadvantaged on the world stage. You see this now with the current copyright situation. It's kind of the same idea as the GPL protecting the greater freedom of software by restricting some of the freedoms that a developer may wish to have. Many similar arguments can apply too, as for example I've heard it said "GPL's restrictions will just push people to use less-restrictive licenses" That may be somewhat true, but there are also people who value the greater freedom more than their personal freedom to use the software in a non-free manner. Note that this isn't an endorsement of GPL over other licenses, just a parallel to be drawn that is somewhat relevant to HN.

pjc50 6y ago

> It is up to the rest of society to develop a proper culture Just as the environmentalists say that you can't really throw things away because there is no "away", increasingly there is no "rest of society" that exists completely outside online culture. Especially in the year we've all been quarantined inside.