4 ms·

This seems like a slippery slope. Should the makers of junk food also be held liable for impacting the health of countless individuals? The research has been ou

This seems like a slippery slope. Should the makers of junk food also be held liable for impacting the health of countless individuals? The research has been out there for decades. What about social media companies? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and shifting blame on to suppliers for not taking action sooner? It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.

aqme28 5y ago
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think you're making a salient point. Poe's law, I guess. What is wrong with junk food providers considering the impact on the health of their customers? Why should social media companies not worry about the mental health of the user?
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.
  - xapata 5y ago
    There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.
    - karaterobot 5y ago
      Working quite well for what purpose?
      - xapata 5y ago
        Taxes appear to have a proportional effect on consumption in several categories (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), so they're a good policy tool. Much better than trying to prohibit.
  - aqme28 5y ago
    But CFC prohibition did. It's not as simple as just "prohibition doesn't work." It depends on the product and people's needs for it.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >It depends on the product and people's needs for it. And what the available alternatives are. Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  The argument is that junk food providers and social media companies should not be held responsible for misuse of their products. The question is whether there is a "safe dosage" of junk food or social media, and whether if people go beyond that dosage they do it at their own risk. If the serving size is one cookie, and I eat 25 cookies, should the baker be held accountable?
  - LeanderK 5y ago
    Well, I think it's important whether the company encourages unsafe behaviour. If you only have gigantic menus with no incentive to take the small soda, or if social media is engineered to be as addictive way beyond the healthy amount, then I think the companies take some of the blame. I think this analogy holds for shell.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    First of all, it should be regulated one level above, like not having Big Sugar/Corn syrup put into every single edible thing, to a point where the population is literally addicted and feels food without it bland. That is a crime against a whole nation. Second of all, yeah, cheaper product at the expense of the consumer’s health is not an okay step. But yet again it is supposed to be the government’s job to blacklist some ingredients, mandate proper labeling of them, as well as the amount of energy/minerals contained.
re-actor 5y ago
A slippery slope into what? Accountability? If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> Where do we draw the line Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be taxed to pay for the burden it places on the healthcare system; the same goes for cigarettes; carbon emissions should be taxed to cover the cost of subsequent extraction; and so on. > It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design. Erm, what? You started by arguing against stricter laws (framed in a JAQing off manner); then blame weak laws for not preventing the damage. How does that make any sense?
Isinlor 5y ago
Should companies be liable for knowingly putting poison into food they sell? Yes, obviously. > It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design. The laws should include not knowingly causing harm to the people if there are alternatives available. > This seems like a slippery slope. Courts are there to weight the obligations put on companies and rights of individuals. As long as judicial system works, there is no slippery slope.

aqme28 5y ago

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think you're making a salient point. Poe's law, I guess. What is wrong with junk food providers considering the impact on the health of their customers? Why should social media companies not worry about the mental health of the user?

aww_dang 5y ago
Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.
- xapata 5y ago
  There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Working quite well for what purpose?
    - xapata 5y ago
      Taxes appear to have a proportional effect on consumption in several categories (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), so they're a good policy tool. Much better than trying to prohibit.
- aqme28 5y ago
  But CFC prohibition did. It's not as simple as just "prohibition doesn't work." It depends on the product and people's needs for it.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >It depends on the product and people's needs for it. And what the available alternatives are. Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
karaterobot 5y ago
The argument is that junk food providers and social media companies should not be held responsible for misuse of their products. The question is whether there is a "safe dosage" of junk food or social media, and whether if people go beyond that dosage they do it at their own risk. If the serving size is one cookie, and I eat 25 cookies, should the baker be held accountable?
- LeanderK 5y ago
  Well, I think it's important whether the company encourages unsafe behaviour. If you only have gigantic menus with no incentive to take the small soda, or if social media is engineered to be as addictive way beyond the healthy amount, then I think the companies take some of the blame. I think this analogy holds for shell.
- kaba0 5y ago
  First of all, it should be regulated one level above, like not having Big Sugar/Corn syrup put into every single edible thing, to a point where the population is literally addicted and feels food without it bland. That is a crime against a whole nation. Second of all, yeah, cheaper product at the expense of the consumer’s health is not an okay step. But yet again it is supposed to be the government’s job to blacklist some ingredients, mandate proper labeling of them, as well as the amount of energy/minerals contained.

re-actor 5y ago

A slippery slope into what? Accountability? If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.

chriswarbo 5y ago

> Where do we draw the line Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be taxed to pay for the burden it places on the healthcare system; the same goes for cigarettes; carbon emissions should be taxed to cover the cost of subsequent extraction; and so on. > It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design. Erm, what? You started by arguing against stricter laws (framed in a JAQing off manner); then blame weak laws for not preventing the damage. How does that make any sense?

Isinlor 5y ago

Should companies be liable for knowingly putting poison into food they sell? Yes, obviously. > It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design. The laws should include not knowingly causing harm to the people if there are alternatives available. > This seems like a slippery slope. Courts are there to weight the obligations put on companies and rights of individuals. As long as judicial system works, there is no slippery slope.