4 ms·
Why is the conclusion always to regulate <technology> and not to regulate workplace surveillance for example?
by Simon321 6y ago
Why is the conclusion always to regulate <technology> and not to regulate workplace surveillance for example?
- duxup 6y agoWhen reading I actually assumed any such regulation would effectively be "regulate workplace surveillance" of sorts. The software described would fall into that category.
- mannykannot 6y agoYou do not even have to assume it - here's a quote that sums up the drift of the entire article: "It is time for national regulatory agencies to guard against unproven applications, especially those targeting children and other vulnerable populations." The article also makes the claim that some of these technologies are based on simplistic and largely disproved psychological assumptions, but again, its opposition is to their use rather than mere existence.
- AbrahamParangi 6y ago“Guard against unproven applications” is very different from protecting a right to privacy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gspr 6y ago> Why is the conclusion always to regulate <technology> and not to regulate workplace surveillance for example? Why not both? Both the tool and the activity?
- marcosdumay 6y agoBecause one is a piece of data that anybody can create and distribute, while the other is a harmful practice that people are fighting for generations.
- quotemstr 6y agoBecause most people have a status quo bias and instinctively want to embalm the world in the technological state it was in when they were in their 20s and early 30s. A new technology always turns over somebody's applecart. Most people don't have the long view necessary for understanding that all technological progress is good.
- Proven 6y agoOh they'll regulate that too. The tech comes first and they grab them by the balls early on. Then - after market participants come to realize they need to lobby and pay to play - comes the next step, regulating the market to protect the children or something.