5 ms·

Just add a simple exception for THIS case. When Amazon has had to do this 1000+ unique times, then we can have the debate of whether their extra work is worth

Just add a simple exception for THIS case. When Amazon has had to do this 1000+ unique times, then we can have the debate of whether their extra work is worth the lost lives of kids. Probably still a loser of an argument IMO but let’s just take a simple first step yeah?

giantg2 4y ago
Why not ban the booklet? Then this whole discussion is moot.
- Manu40 4y ago
  Because banning things has never worked, for literally almost anything in human history. It just makes it more desirable since you can't have it. Humans are weird like that. But maybe it's fitting we are like that, because at the end of the day, who's right is it to be banning anything? Certainly not yours, or mine. Sure, protect the children... but against what? Themselves? Kids have been doing stupid things for a long time, and been mostly fine. It's only recently that society has decided to ban joy as well by happenstance via the many methods employed to reduce the spread of covid that things started to go overboard. How about we just stop making life shitty for people. That will be what makes this entire discussion moot.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    It's not that kids will stop doing it, but that Amazon would have taken action to prevent this on their platform (in the least invasive way), and there's no lawsuit at that point. Interesting that the article doesn't mention if the book is still available or not. "How about we just stop making life shitty for people." Easier said than done. Most of the child suicides are so well off families.
    - Manu40 4y ago
      > Easier said than done. Sure, but nothing in life worth doing is easy. Sometimes you have to take the hard path to gain anything worthwhile. And quite frankly, there is no reason or excuse for society to continue to be made shittier and shittier just to suit the inadequate opinions of literally anyone.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Please be objective and reasonable. Define shitty. Where do we start with the fixes? It's easy to write an angry comment talking about generalized ideas that are universally acceptable but can have opposing ways of getting it done.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    This argument is ridiculous. Throwing up small obstacles to suicide has been done forever and isn’t controversial. People are impulsive. We put up railings and hotline phones on bridges and stuff like that. That’s a good thing.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      Can you articulate an argument for why it’s a good thing? This is controversial; people fought against adding ugly suicide netting to the Golden Gate Bridge for years, and there are strong utilitarianism-based arguments for limiting the lengths we go to prevent suicide.
      - CPLX 4y ago
        Because the social benefits of literally recommending a suicide handbook alongside a chemical that kills in 20 minutes on a platform widely used by almost every family in America without a second thought is zero. There’s no cost benefit analysis to do here for the rest of us. There’s no pros and cons. Amazon doing this is bad, they were told about it and didn’t fix it. They have godlike amounts of money and are telling us to go fuck ourselves if it bothers us. They could make an algorithm that doesn’t literally recommend suicide to teens and they should. There’s no other side of the argument we are talking about a recommendation here. The recommendation engine is a consumer product and it’s faulty. As for the chemical the legitimate needs for it are likely vanishingly small and I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it. We have been so corrupted by corporate influence we don’t even think to insist that companies act in the benefit of society anymore. Making profits isn’t a god given right if the product is bad for people.
        catiopatio 4y ago
        > I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it. Well, you just articulated one of the major social benefits. We do really mind. The benefits are clearly not zero, like you claimed. What you didn’t articulate is an argument for why we should invest so much — and give up privacy and our freedoms — to try (and fail) to prevent such a vanishingly small number of self-inflicted deaths. This is emotional outrage bait, not a basis for instituting evidence-based policy. Frankly, it’s not our problem, and not our cost to be bourne. If you want to take away anyone’s ability to use the internet for commerce without interference, why don’t you you start with taking away your own children’s free access to the internet and credit cards, rather than everyone else? You can do that yourself, today — and probably should.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Yeah no, let's not. Razor blades, pen knives, #8 marine line, paracord. All of these things are trivially used to kill yourself. It is not societies job to protect your snot goblin for killing themselves because you let the little tyke have free access to order whatever they want from the internet.

giantg2 4y ago

Why not ban the booklet? Then this whole discussion is moot.

Manu40 4y ago
Because banning things has never worked, for literally almost anything in human history. It just makes it more desirable since you can't have it. Humans are weird like that. But maybe it's fitting we are like that, because at the end of the day, who's right is it to be banning anything? Certainly not yours, or mine. Sure, protect the children... but against what? Themselves? Kids have been doing stupid things for a long time, and been mostly fine. It's only recently that society has decided to ban joy as well by happenstance via the many methods employed to reduce the spread of covid that things started to go overboard. How about we just stop making life shitty for people. That will be what makes this entire discussion moot.
- giantg2 4y ago
  It's not that kids will stop doing it, but that Amazon would have taken action to prevent this on their platform (in the least invasive way), and there's no lawsuit at that point. Interesting that the article doesn't mention if the book is still available or not. "How about we just stop making life shitty for people." Easier said than done. Most of the child suicides are so well off families.
  - Manu40 4y ago
    > Easier said than done. Sure, but nothing in life worth doing is easy. Sometimes you have to take the hard path to gain anything worthwhile. And quite frankly, there is no reason or excuse for society to continue to be made shittier and shittier just to suit the inadequate opinions of literally anyone.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Please be objective and reasonable. Define shitty. Where do we start with the fixes? It's easy to write an angry comment talking about generalized ideas that are universally acceptable but can have opposing ways of getting it done.
- CPLX 4y ago
  This argument is ridiculous. Throwing up small obstacles to suicide has been done forever and isn’t controversial. People are impulsive. We put up railings and hotline phones on bridges and stuff like that. That’s a good thing.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    Can you articulate an argument for why it’s a good thing? This is controversial; people fought against adding ugly suicide netting to the Golden Gate Bridge for years, and there are strong utilitarianism-based arguments for limiting the lengths we go to prevent suicide.
    - CPLX 4y ago
      Because the social benefits of literally recommending a suicide handbook alongside a chemical that kills in 20 minutes on a platform widely used by almost every family in America without a second thought is zero. There’s no cost benefit analysis to do here for the rest of us. There’s no pros and cons. Amazon doing this is bad, they were told about it and didn’t fix it. They have godlike amounts of money and are telling us to go fuck ourselves if it bothers us. They could make an algorithm that doesn’t literally recommend suicide to teens and they should. There’s no other side of the argument we are talking about a recommendation here. The recommendation engine is a consumer product and it’s faulty. As for the chemical the legitimate needs for it are likely vanishingly small and I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it. We have been so corrupted by corporate influence we don’t even think to insist that companies act in the benefit of society anymore. Making profits isn’t a god given right if the product is bad for people.
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        > I find it really unlikely the people that need it would really mind some age verification or another extra safety step when ordering it. Well, you just articulated one of the major social benefits. We do really mind. The benefits are clearly not zero, like you claimed. What you didn’t articulate is an argument for why we should invest so much — and give up privacy and our freedoms — to try (and fail) to prevent such a vanishingly small number of self-inflicted deaths. This is emotional outrage bait, not a basis for instituting evidence-based policy. Frankly, it’s not our problem, and not our cost to be bourne. If you want to take away anyone’s ability to use the internet for commerce without interference, why don’t you you start with taking away your own children’s free access to the internet and credit cards, rather than everyone else? You can do that yourself, today — and probably should.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Yeah no, let's not. Razor blades, pen knives, #8 marine line, paracord. All of these things are trivially used to kill yourself. It is not societies job to protect your snot goblin for killing themselves because you let the little tyke have free access to order whatever they want from the internet.