6 ms·

Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. I think the real issue is that people live in black holes of misinformation

by jboy55 5y ago

Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. I think the real issue is that people live in black holes of misinformation on the internet because that is where they want to be. When I look at the many Herman Cain Award threads on reddit, it seems the predominate original source of most posts is groups that the user signed up for. This isn't new, before Facebook, there were usenet and forums, AM Radio and even mailing lists and magazines.

sokoloff 5y ago
> Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. Exactly this! Every time I see someone proposing some new expansion of government reach and power, it seems to be considered only from the angle of “just think of what the (people I think of as the) good guys could do with this increased authority!” “Yeah, but what could the bad guys do with this increased authority? Because as sure as the sun rises in the East, whoever you think of as the bad guys will eventually come to power and have this authority…”
- dcow 5y ago
  You can 1) make something illegal without 2) requiring any sort of regulation.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Yes, there’s a technical legal distinction between a law (legislative) and a regulation (executive), but nothing in my comment above was intended to signify that I want one or the other to have broad authority to protect their incumbency or exercise power over the People to a greater extent than today.
- erentz 5y ago
  Why does it have to mean giving anyone power? We could for example enact privacy laws that make it illegal to share personal data. That gives no one power, and takes away power from corporations. We could enact laws that prevent targeted advertising, which would make it pointless to gather a lot of the data they gather in the first place. That doesn’t make the bad politician any more powerful. So on.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I estimate that laws to prevent all forms of targeting advertising serve to protect incumbents (both corporate and political incumbents). That makes incumbent politicians more powerful (in relative terms).
    - 8note 5y ago
      Specifically they serve to protect consumers. They might also protect incumbents, at least ones that don't have targetted advertising, but they're still in service of the consumer
  - jboy55 5y ago
    That is saying the misinformation comes from companies gaming the news feeds and not the people choosing friends, influencers or groups of the former that re-enforce their feelings of victimhood? I mean are we upset at targeted ads, or the sea of misinformation and biases that are fostered by social media? The seeds of which are often political AM radio and TV news networks.
- 8note 5y ago
  I don't think the bad guys would respect the law's limit anyways. The not-very-bad bad guy seems like a werid group to optimize for.
hnaccount141 5y ago
> Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. Even the worst politician is (ostensibly) accountable to the people. Corporations are not.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Corporations don't have customers?

by jboy55 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

> Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. Exactly this! Every time I see someone proposing some new expansion of government reach and power, it seems to be considered only from the angle of “just think of what the (people I think of as the) good guys could do with this increased authority!” “Yeah, but what could the bad guys do with this increased authority? Because as sure as the sun rises in the East, whoever you think of as the bad guys will eventually come to power and have this authority…”

dcow 5y ago
You can 1) make something illegal without 2) requiring any sort of regulation.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Yes, there’s a technical legal distinction between a law (legislative) and a regulation (executive), but nothing in my comment above was intended to signify that I want one or the other to have broad authority to protect their incumbency or exercise power over the People to a greater extent than today.
erentz 5y ago
Why does it have to mean giving anyone power? We could for example enact privacy laws that make it illegal to share personal data. That gives no one power, and takes away power from corporations. We could enact laws that prevent targeted advertising, which would make it pointless to gather a lot of the data they gather in the first place. That doesn’t make the bad politician any more powerful. So on.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I estimate that laws to prevent all forms of targeting advertising serve to protect incumbents (both corporate and political incumbents). That makes incumbent politicians more powerful (in relative terms).
  - 8note 5y ago
    Specifically they serve to protect consumers. They might also protect incumbents, at least ones that don't have targetted advertising, but they're still in service of the consumer
- jboy55 5y ago
  That is saying the misinformation comes from companies gaming the news feeds and not the people choosing friends, influencers or groups of the former that re-enforce their feelings of victimhood? I mean are we upset at targeted ads, or the sea of misinformation and biases that are fostered by social media? The seeds of which are often political AM radio and TV news networks.
8note 5y ago
I don't think the bad guys would respect the law's limit anyways. The not-very-bad bad guy seems like a werid group to optimize for.

hnaccount141 5y ago

> Just imagine the politician of your nightmares being in control of the regulations. Even the worst politician is (ostensibly) accountable to the people. Corporations are not.

goatlover 5y ago
Corporations don't have customers?