5 ms·

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 fo

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.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    Who is we? You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site you use to restock your kitchen or is this some kind of hypothetical cost you’re worried about incurring here? If this is really your approach to consumer product safety then I suppose you’re consistent, if wrong. I bet it’s not though. I suspect you’re pretty happy with the outcome of a framework where dangerous products are regulated. The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value. We mandate everything from child proof packaging to rear view mirrors to alcohol consumption of pilots to competence exams for barbers to labeling for Doritos. I suspect most in this thread are idly arguing from bias rather than reading the facts of Amazon’s behavior here it’s pretty indefensible. Our tech giants are corporations and the things they produce are products. By a few historical accidents (especially section 230) and a shit ton of corporate PR we have been conditioned not to evaluate them as consumer products that can be defective and harmful but we should start.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      > You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site Yes, I do. You do too. Your medicine cabinet and cleaning supplies are full of lethal “lab chemicals” that would kill if ingested, or ingested in even mild excess. But this isn’t even a “highly lethal lab chemical”, it’s just sodium nitrate; mined straight from the earth, and has been used as a food preservative for at least a couple centuries. > … you use to restock your kitchen It’s none of your business what we buy these things for, whether it’s to stock our kitchen for meat preservation, or backyard science experiments with our kids. > The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value. The freedom you’re attacking out of emotional panic isn’t Amazon’s. They can comply with whatever arbitrary nonsensical “save the children” crap you invent, and compliance will cost a microscopic percentage of their overall revenue. The freedom you’re attacking is mine, and everyone else’s. Take responsibility for yourself and your own children. If you can’t do that, blame yourself, not me.
      - CPLX 4y ago

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.
- CPLX 4y ago
  Who is we? You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site you use to restock your kitchen or is this some kind of hypothetical cost you’re worried about incurring here? If this is really your approach to consumer product safety then I suppose you’re consistent, if wrong. I bet it’s not though. I suspect you’re pretty happy with the outcome of a framework where dangerous products are regulated. The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value. We mandate everything from child proof packaging to rear view mirrors to alcohol consumption of pilots to competence exams for barbers to labeling for Doritos. I suspect most in this thread are idly arguing from bias rather than reading the facts of Amazon’s behavior here it’s pretty indefensible. Our tech giants are corporations and the things they produce are products. By a few historical accidents (especially section 230) and a shit ton of corporate PR we have been conditioned not to evaluate them as consumer products that can be defective and harmful but we should start.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    > You order highly lethal lab chemicals from a one click consumer products site Yes, I do. You do too. Your medicine cabinet and cleaning supplies are full of lethal “lab chemicals” that would kill if ingested, or ingested in even mild excess. But this isn’t even a “highly lethal lab chemical”, it’s just sodium nitrate; mined straight from the earth, and has been used as a food preservative for at least a couple centuries. > … you use to restock your kitchen It’s none of your business what we buy these things for, whether it’s to stock our kitchen for meat preservation, or backyard science experiments with our kids. > The freedom argument is specious we don’t regulate commerce with corporate freedom as an overriding value. The freedom you’re attacking out of emotional panic isn’t Amazon’s. They can comply with whatever arbitrary nonsensical “save the children” crap you invent, and compliance will cost a microscopic percentage of their overall revenue. The freedom you’re attacking is mine, and everyone else’s. Take responsibility for yourself and your own children. If you can’t do that, blame yourself, not me.
    - CPLX 4y ago