4 ms·

To summarise, you're suggesting we shouldn't worry about a worst-case interpretation of the law, because you're confident that we'll have a best-case interpreta

• eesmith 3y ago
  That is a wrong summary. The claim is that the feds mandated a kill switch. The law does not mandate a kill switch. You have a several-stage process where the worst-case scenarios has to play out. 1) the technology needs to be more fully developed; 2) the policies need to be put into place (this could take years); 3) there is at least two years after #2 before it's required, and 4) the majority of Congress have to not want to change it. The materials I linked to earlier pointed out that in the 1970s Congress mandated driver seat belt interlocks, only to repeat it when there was enough outrage. So it's not like #4 can't happen. The government could raise taxes to 100%. That's not a worst-case event that I'm going to spend time talking about. Don't buy the fear-mongering this link is trying to sell you. And even if I'm wrong, you have years to advocate for change once the worst-case becomes public.