3 ms·

Legislation is used in cases where individuals either can't make that choice or if individuals' choices would cause negative externalities for some people. Tha

Legislation is used in cases where individuals either can't make that choice or if individuals' choices would cause negative externalities for some people. That's how we get food safety laws, employment laws, waste disposal laws, etc. With regards to food safety for example, the vast majority of people don't have the equipment nor knowledge to be able to test whether the food they just bought isn't contaminated, so it's better for everyone if the law just uses the threat of significant penalties to force companies to produce safe food and that people can buy and eat food and be 99% confident there is nothing nasty in there. The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default.

cguess 4y ago
> the vast majority of people don't have the equipment nor knowledge to be able to test whether the food they just bought isn't contaminated, Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's food companies actually tried to convince people that this was the right thing, instead of, you know, just selling unadulterated food. The argument was literally "if we just put 'borax' on some sort of ingredients list people can choose for themselves." Women's magazine and cookbooks explained to house wives how to chemically check their food for contaminates (which required a lot of interesting acids) which included fun things like formaldehyde and liquified cows brains (to simulate "cream" on top of really water-downed milk). Just to be clear, this only helped the companies and in certain circles ~1850-1906 (when the pure food act was passed) is called "the great stomach ache" because people were essentially eating poisons in every meal. People are awful at understanding their own risk profiles, especially in the face of advertising.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > People are awful at understanding their own risk profiles, especially in the face of advertising. Advertising is also regulated, by the government. The same one that regulates what goes inside of food. If the public is vulnerable to manipulation by advertising, the government is also vulnerable to manipulation by lobbying (remember the USDA "food pyramid" that put grains at the bottom due to industry lobbying?). Your argument is inconsistent because it implies that the government is somehow both simultaneously going to allow the public to be deceived by advertising, but correctly regulate the contents of food itself.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It's not inconsistent to say that the government has significantly more resistance to manipulation than a random person.
throw10920 4y ago
> That's how we get food safety laws Yes, and we also have food labeling laws that require companies to truthfully warn consumers about some mildly-unhealthy things (sugar, trans fats) on the nutrition facts label - but, crucially, these laws do not ban those things. That's the argument being made - that companies should be able to run on business models that aren't extremely bad (putting yourself into slavery, physical harm) as long as they clearly communicate to consumers exactly what they're doing (which, to be clear, is not happening now - a 30-page privacy policy in legalese with lots of "mays" is nowhere close to the "privacy nutrition label" that we deserve). > The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default. That's a crazy invalid argument. The fact that very few people can reverse-engineer binaries doesn't actually matter. The government also isn't going to reverse-engineer every binary in existence, nor do they test every single product that is sold for banned substances, because that's not the way that (e.g. food safety) laws work. The way that food safety laws actually work is that the government says "here are the rules for labelling, and here are a list of things that absolutely cannot go into your product at all" and then may occasionally test for compliance. That's exactly how both (a) labelling (but allowing) and (b) banning sale/(mis)use of personal information would work. Your (invalid) argument has nothing to do with the argument about whether it's better for companies to not do thing x vs do thing x but clearly warn customers about it, because the enforcement/detection mechanism is exactly the same, whereas you're (falsely) implying that it somehow differs.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > > That's how we get food safety laws > Yes, and we also have food labeling laws that require companies to truthfully warn consumers about some mildly-unhealthy things (sugar, trans fats) on the nutrition facts label - but, crucially, these laws do not ban those things. The US is pretty big in the war on drugs, so yes they ban things. Moreover they use their military and economic power to pressure others to do the same. > That's the argument being made - that companies should be able to run on business models that aren't extremely bad (putting yourself into slavery, physical harm) as long as they clearly communicate to consumers exactly what they're doing (which, to be clear, is not happening now - a 30-page privacy policy in legalese with lots of "mays" is nowhere close to the "privacy nutrition label" that we deserve). So in principle you are agreeing companies should be regulated. You just disagree on the extend. > > The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default. > That's a crazy invalid argument. The fact that very few people can reverse-engineer binaries doesn't actually matter. The government also isn't going to reverse-engineer every binary in existence, nor do they test every single product that is sold for banned substances, because that's not the way that (e.g. food safety) laws work. > The way that food safety laws actually work is that the government says "here are the rules for labelling, and here are a list of things that absolutely cannot go into your product at all" and then may occasionally test for compliance. That's exactly how both (a) labelling (but allowing) and (b) banning sale/(mis)use of personal information would work. > Your (invalid) argument has nothing to do with the argument about whether it's better for companies to not do thing x vs do thing x but clearly warn customers about it, because the enforcement/detection mechanism is exactly the same, whereas you're (falsely) implying that it somehow differs. I think the main argument is actually not about how easy it is to understand the implications of certain labels, but an argument about power balances. The power imbalance of a single consumer compared to a company like Facebook is immense. Facebook is employing many psychologist to make their product as addictive as possible ( the notion that we are rational beings that are immune to psychological manipulation has long been proven false), moreover even if the overstep some lines, their many lawyers will ensure that as a consumer you still only have a small chance for regress. Democracy is fundamentally a tool to balance power and that's exactly what is happening in this case, people want Facebook et al to be regulated to balance the power. Admittedly there are problems, i.e. voters are also subject to psychological manipulation, but it's still much better than anything else we have.

cguess 4y ago

> the vast majority of people don't have the equipment nor knowledge to be able to test whether the food they just bought isn't contaminated, Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's food companies actually tried to convince people that this was the right thing, instead of, you know, just selling unadulterated food. The argument was literally "if we just put 'borax' on some sort of ingredients list people can choose for themselves." Women's magazine and cookbooks explained to house wives how to chemically check their food for contaminates (which required a lot of interesting acids) which included fun things like formaldehyde and liquified cows brains (to simulate "cream" on top of really water-downed milk). Just to be clear, this only helped the companies and in certain circles ~1850-1906 (when the pure food act was passed) is called "the great stomach ache" because people were essentially eating poisons in every meal. People are awful at understanding their own risk profiles, especially in the face of advertising.

throw10920 4y ago
> People are awful at understanding their own risk profiles, especially in the face of advertising. Advertising is also regulated, by the government. The same one that regulates what goes inside of food. If the public is vulnerable to manipulation by advertising, the government is also vulnerable to manipulation by lobbying (remember the USDA "food pyramid" that put grains at the bottom due to industry lobbying?). Your argument is inconsistent because it implies that the government is somehow both simultaneously going to allow the public to be deceived by advertising, but correctly regulate the contents of food itself.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  It's not inconsistent to say that the government has significantly more resistance to manipulation than a random person.

throw10920 4y ago

> That's how we get food safety laws Yes, and we also have food labeling laws that require companies to truthfully warn consumers about some mildly-unhealthy things (sugar, trans fats) on the nutrition facts label - but, crucially, these laws do not ban those things. That's the argument being made - that companies should be able to run on business models that aren't extremely bad (putting yourself into slavery, physical harm) as long as they clearly communicate to consumers exactly what they're doing (which, to be clear, is not happening now - a 30-page privacy policy in legalese with lots of "mays" is nowhere close to the "privacy nutrition label" that we deserve). > The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default. That's a crazy invalid argument. The fact that very few people can reverse-engineer binaries doesn't actually matter. The government also isn't going to reverse-engineer every binary in existence, nor do they test every single product that is sold for banned substances, because that's not the way that (e.g. food safety) laws work. The way that food safety laws actually work is that the government says "here are the rules for labelling, and here are a list of things that absolutely cannot go into your product at all" and then may occasionally test for compliance. That's exactly how both (a) labelling (but allowing) and (b) banning sale/(mis)use of personal information would work. Your (invalid) argument has nothing to do with the argument about whether it's better for companies to not do thing x vs do thing x but clearly warn customers about it, because the enforcement/detection mechanism is exactly the same, whereas you're (falsely) implying that it somehow differs.

cycomanic 4y ago
> > That's how we get food safety laws > Yes, and we also have food labeling laws that require companies to truthfully warn consumers about some mildly-unhealthy things (sugar, trans fats) on the nutrition facts label - but, crucially, these laws do not ban those things. The US is pretty big in the war on drugs, so yes they ban things. Moreover they use their military and economic power to pressure others to do the same. > That's the argument being made - that companies should be able to run on business models that aren't extremely bad (putting yourself into slavery, physical harm) as long as they clearly communicate to consumers exactly what they're doing (which, to be clear, is not happening now - a 30-page privacy policy in legalese with lots of "mays" is nowhere close to the "privacy nutrition label" that we deserve). So in principle you are agreeing companies should be regulated. You just disagree on the extend. > > The same can apply for data protection - very few people have the skills and resources to reverse-engineer every single binary they run and inspect network traffic, so it's better if significant penalties just force all companies to not misuse personal data by default. > That's a crazy invalid argument. The fact that very few people can reverse-engineer binaries doesn't actually matter. The government also isn't going to reverse-engineer every binary in existence, nor do they test every single product that is sold for banned substances, because that's not the way that (e.g. food safety) laws work. > The way that food safety laws actually work is that the government says "here are the rules for labelling, and here are a list of things that absolutely cannot go into your product at all" and then may occasionally test for compliance. That's exactly how both (a) labelling (but allowing) and (b) banning sale/(mis)use of personal information would work. > Your (invalid) argument has nothing to do with the argument about whether it's better for companies to not do thing x vs do thing x but clearly warn customers about it, because the enforcement/detection mechanism is exactly the same, whereas you're (falsely) implying that it somehow differs. I think the main argument is actually not about how easy it is to understand the implications of certain labels, but an argument about power balances. The power imbalance of a single consumer compared to a company like Facebook is immense. Facebook is employing many psychologist to make their product as addictive as possible ( the notion that we are rational beings that are immune to psychological manipulation has long been proven false), moreover even if the overstep some lines, their many lawyers will ensure that as a consumer you still only have a small chance for regress. Democracy is fundamentally a tool to balance power and that's exactly what is happening in this case, people want Facebook et al to be regulated to balance the power. Admittedly there are problems, i.e. voters are also subject to psychological manipulation, but it's still much better than anything else we have.