3 ms·

In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing, and only the people that actually caused

In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing, and only the people that actually caused the accident are to blame. If you think that victims of a "catastrophic event" need compensation, why not propose to institute a mandatory insurance for people using the Internet, like many countries do for cars ? (I am assuming here that the website is not actively trying to help crime, but this doesn't look to be the case with Omegle)

dragonwriter 3y ago
> In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing Its really not; user fees in the form of driver's license fees, vehicle license fees (both of which tend to be legally required for operation on public roads in most US jurisdictions), federal and state gasoline taxes, etc., are used to pay for use of public roads, as well as general fund taxes which are directed to roads (making even the indirect use of roads by ordering goods, etc., not really free.)
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think you are missing the point intentionally. I have seen you make many cogent points over the years, but this is just low effort failure to engage. Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers. Neither is the state because they built the roads.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers. Not, primarily, via payment to the state for using the road, true. They do, however, pay for liability of general road rules violations, instead, through mandatory insurance, also a general legal requirement for using public roads, though you can opt out from the risk pooling nature of insurance in most (all?) states by assuring (via a personal liability bond) that you will pay for the damages you cause up to the threshold amount of required coverage. Public road use simply isn't something that is cost free with the idea that “well, a bunch of people will be damaged, but there is no need to assure that those damages are reasonably covered because other people will benefit”, it has lots of costs associated with use, and a number of them (both the licensing regime and the insurance regime) are about limiting harms even at the expense of potential beneficial use and assuring compensation is available for those that are harmed. Yes, its an elaborate and different regime than paying to the supplier who pays for damages, but a regime exists, so its hardly an example of how no such regime is necessary for a service that has benefits for most users and acute harms for some.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think that mandatory insurance for roads was already acknowledged by the parent poster. They invoked it directly by suggesting internet users should have to carry liability insurance if the central concern is victim restitution or compensation (like roads). You are making the same point you objected to. The fundamental question is what is the legal objective here, and what do we want it to be? 1) Is the goal to make sure that victims are compensated? 2) Do we think companies like omegle are negligent, and are we trying to hold them accountable? 3) Do we actually think neither? If the answer is 1 but not 2, then making Omegles pay is clearly an injustice, and we should be looking into some sort of mandatory user insurance. Putting my cards on the table, I am in camp 3. Just because bad things happen, doesnt mean can or should find a way to compensate the injured party.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      And yet the designers of dangerous roads are (at this point almost notoriously) not liable for the ramifications of their designs.
Culonavirus 3y ago
> In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet Yet EV's still have to pass insane standards because 1/10th, 1/100th of deaths would be too much... it's all about our monkey brain's perception, negativity bias (i.e. 100x good thing equals 1x bad thing) and emotions. We are tied to these things until we leave our carbon meat suits.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Are you confusing electric with autonomous here?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing Its really not; user fees in the form of driver's license fees, vehicle license fees (both of which tend to be legally required for operation on public roads in most US jurisdictions), federal and state gasoline taxes, etc., are used to pay for use of public roads, as well as general fund taxes which are directed to roads (making even the indirect use of roads by ordering goods, etc., not really free.)

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think you are missing the point intentionally. I have seen you make many cogent points over the years, but this is just low effort failure to engage. Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers. Neither is the state because they built the roads.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers. Not, primarily, via payment to the state for using the road, true. They do, however, pay for liability of general road rules violations, instead, through mandatory insurance, also a general legal requirement for using public roads, though you can opt out from the risk pooling nature of insurance in most (all?) states by assuring (via a personal liability bond) that you will pay for the damages you cause up to the threshold amount of required coverage. Public road use simply isn't something that is cost free with the idea that “well, a bunch of people will be damaged, but there is no need to assure that those damages are reasonably covered because other people will benefit”, it has lots of costs associated with use, and a number of them (both the licensing regime and the insurance regime) are about limiting harms even at the expense of potential beneficial use and assuring compensation is available for those that are harmed. Yes, its an elaborate and different regime than paying to the supplier who pays for damages, but a regime exists, so its hardly an example of how no such regime is necessary for a service that has benefits for most users and acute harms for some.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think that mandatory insurance for roads was already acknowledged by the parent poster. They invoked it directly by suggesting internet users should have to carry liability insurance if the central concern is victim restitution or compensation (like roads). You are making the same point you objected to. The fundamental question is what is the legal objective here, and what do we want it to be? 1) Is the goal to make sure that victims are compensated? 2) Do we think companies like omegle are negligent, and are we trying to hold them accountable? 3) Do we actually think neither? If the answer is 1 but not 2, then making Omegles pay is clearly an injustice, and we should be looking into some sort of mandatory user insurance. Putting my cards on the table, I am in camp 3. Just because bad things happen, doesnt mean can or should find a way to compensate the injured party.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    And yet the designers of dangerous roads are (at this point almost notoriously) not liable for the ramifications of their designs.

Culonavirus 3y ago

> In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet Yet EV's still have to pass insane standards because 1/10th, 1/100th of deaths would be too much... it's all about our monkey brain's perception, negativity bias (i.e. 100x good thing equals 1x bad thing) and emotions. We are tied to these things until we leave our carbon meat suits.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Are you confusing electric with autonomous here?