5 ms·

That sounds utterly ridiculous. Is that how America got the mentality that you're not allowed to have your child play unsupervised on the front lawn? Obviously

That sounds utterly ridiculous. Is that how America got the mentality that you're not allowed to have your child play unsupervised on the front lawn? Obviously Alexa shouldn't give such answers, but at what point do you just exclude children from everything because everything ends up being a risk for them? Edit: I worded things too strongly, but it does seem to me that in more and more cases we want to ban children from being able to use products or access services 'for their own safety'.

kube-system 5y ago
The CPSC doesn’t exist to ban children from using products for their own safety. The CPSC exists to ban companies from putting children in danger for their own profit.
floatingatoll 5y ago
A common example of a CPSC ban is “lawn darts”, which were weighted metal spikes that you’d throw in the air and try to embed in a target. Enough children were killed that they’re now outright banned, and have been for something like thirty years. Was it right for them to ban a children’s toy that was specifically designed in a way that, when used correctly, would have a significant chance of killing children? Another instance of CPSC recently is seen in the Peloton treadmill, but they’ve been doing safety recalls for dangerous yet little-noticed stuff like Generic Crib ABC That Strangles Babies from the market for decades now, once their process established a true risk of harm due to design defects. I think I’m net comfortable with their existence, personally, since they don’t seem to issue recalls needlessly, and they’ve materially improved the safety of children without banning many products that will be missed. Lawn darts may be cool, and it’s probably uncool to ban them, but no child is going to suffer for a lack of lawn darts in their life. Development requires human attention and play time (not screens), and there’s plenty of other ways to achieve that without CPSC-banned products. I get that my views here are a viewpoint and an opinion, but I’m not yet persuaded that either the CPSC is overreaching in general by existing, or that their involvement in smart assistants would be overreaching in specific. Fortunately, since they do exist and they’re required to act when safety concerns are reported, my views are ultimately irrelevant to their decision-making process on whether to engage on this topic or not. Only legislation could stop them from choosing to care, and so any prediction on whether they will or not is entirely unnecessary. I think liability overreach is the fault of legislators, who are too cowardly to set reasonable limits on when parents can sue for payment for untoward outcomes. The American legal system encourages “$1000 for a skinned knee, $100,000 for a broken bone” junk lawsuits where chance accidents are plausibly not the fault of playground builders (though in certain cases, they are, and the CPSC intervenes!). Resolving that “grow a spine” issue with our leaders and judges is independent from whether CPSC deserves to exist and is beneficial to public health.
- emilfihlman 5y ago
  Lol, absolutely not banned from having or making or selling. What's been banned is the sale as marketed as an outdoor game.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I don’t understand how the exact nuances of their order regarding my selected example are of interest to you in this discussion, or how those nuances contribute to it. You’ve pointed out what you believe to be a fact, one somewhat contradicted by their plain language wording here [1], but haven’t yet explained why you’re presenting that to us at all. Please do explain. [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/5053.pdf https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/5053.pdf

kube-system 5y ago

The CPSC doesn’t exist to ban children from using products for their own safety. The CPSC exists to ban companies from putting children in danger for their own profit.

floatingatoll 5y ago

A common example of a CPSC ban is “lawn darts”, which were weighted metal spikes that you’d throw in the air and try to embed in a target. Enough children were killed that they’re now outright banned, and have been for something like thirty years. Was it right for them to ban a children’s toy that was specifically designed in a way that, when used correctly, would have a significant chance of killing children? Another instance of CPSC recently is seen in the Peloton treadmill, but they’ve been doing safety recalls for dangerous yet little-noticed stuff like Generic Crib ABC That Strangles Babies from the market for decades now, once their process established a true risk of harm due to design defects. I think I’m net comfortable with their existence, personally, since they don’t seem to issue recalls needlessly, and they’ve materially improved the safety of children without banning many products that will be missed. Lawn darts may be cool, and it’s probably uncool to ban them, but no child is going to suffer for a lack of lawn darts in their life. Development requires human attention and play time (not screens), and there’s plenty of other ways to achieve that without CPSC-banned products. I get that my views here are a viewpoint and an opinion, but I’m not yet persuaded that either the CPSC is overreaching in general by existing, or that their involvement in smart assistants would be overreaching in specific. Fortunately, since they do exist and they’re required to act when safety concerns are reported, my views are ultimately irrelevant to their decision-making process on whether to engage on this topic or not. Only legislation could stop them from choosing to care, and so any prediction on whether they will or not is entirely unnecessary. I think liability overreach is the fault of legislators, who are too cowardly to set reasonable limits on when parents can sue for payment for untoward outcomes. The American legal system encourages “$1000 for a skinned knee, $100,000 for a broken bone” junk lawsuits where chance accidents are plausibly not the fault of playground builders (though in certain cases, they are, and the CPSC intervenes!). Resolving that “grow a spine” issue with our leaders and judges is independent from whether CPSC deserves to exist and is beneficial to public health.

emilfihlman 5y ago
Lol, absolutely not banned from having or making or selling. What's been banned is the sale as marketed as an outdoor game.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I don’t understand how the exact nuances of their order regarding my selected example are of interest to you in this discussion, or how those nuances contribute to it. You’ve pointed out what you believe to be a fact, one somewhat contradicted by their plain language wording here [1], but haven’t yet explained why you’re presenting that to us at all. Please do explain. [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/5053.pdf https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/5053.pdf