2 ms·

> 3. Why are users entitled to see an audit of what’s basically proprietary product information about how the website works, effectively making that information

> 3. Why are users entitled to see an audit of what’s basically proprietary product information about how the website works, effectively making that information available to competitors as well? The same reason ingredients are listed on food products, and detailed nutritional information. Governmental agencies also physically audit food factories to ensure they conform to openly available health standards. The products you sell have positive and negative impact on society, and society can choose for you to disclose exactly what's in your product or force you to limit how you make your product to limit the negative impacts.

SllX 3y ago
There is also a substantive difference between the proposed legislation here and the FDA's mandate: the FDA's mandate covers substances we put into our bodies in order to live and/or not die, and even their mandate only goes so far. Even then, an ingredients list doesn't tell you everything. There are cooking processes that can effect the final appeal (read: "healthiness") of the product but which do not need to be disclosed. You're going to need to give me something more than "it impacts society in some way" for the government to begin mandating product decisions, presentation and the disclosure of proprietary information. Human activity and economy doesn't occur in a vacuum, but that doesn't automatically give the government a mandate to regulate every aspect of society including all forms of business activity with a direct government interest and that's a tough sell when we're talking about voluntary services[1]. [1] Notwithstanding systems like Facebook's infamous "shadow profiles" which I am A-OK with the government axing. If you effectively have a "profile" without having a profile you created, that undermines your own agency.
- SllX 3y ago
  > with a direct government interest Future readers! This is supposed to read “without a direct government interest” but I am only catching this well outside the edit window.

SllX 3y ago

There is also a substantive difference between the proposed legislation here and the FDA's mandate: the FDA's mandate covers substances we put into our bodies in order to live and/or not die, and even their mandate only goes so far. Even then, an ingredients list doesn't tell you everything. There are cooking processes that can effect the final appeal (read: "healthiness") of the product but which do not need to be disclosed. You're going to need to give me something more than "it impacts society in some way" for the government to begin mandating product decisions, presentation and the disclosure of proprietary information. Human activity and economy doesn't occur in a vacuum, but that doesn't automatically give the government a mandate to regulate every aspect of society including all forms of business activity with a direct government interest and that's a tough sell when we're talking about voluntary services[1]. [1] Notwithstanding systems like Facebook's infamous "shadow profiles" which I am A-OK with the government axing. If you effectively have a "profile" without having a profile you created, that undermines your own agency.

SllX 3y ago
> with a direct government interest Future readers! This is supposed to read “without a direct government interest” but I am only catching this well outside the edit window.