> It's hard to support an argument that we should change the law if the harm isn't proven But it is, shadowgvt my friend please dig deeper. It absolutely is!

> It's hard to support an argument that we should change the law if the harm isn't proven But it is, shadowgvt my friend please dig deeper. It absolutely is! Over and again in multiple quality peer reviewed studies and analyses by prominent security engineers and psychologists... This "big tech = bad" thing isn't just some matter of sloppy marginal opinion. It's tediously mainstream thinking now. The only real question is what to do about it. We both know that's not easy. But at this point attacking the premise just seems like a waste of time. A fair place to start is here, with the "ledger of harms" [1] https://ledger.humanetech.com/ https://ledger.humanetech.com/