38 ms·

Well I mean that's the logical conclusion to what these regulations achieve. Don't get me wrong, I don't claim to know when it's worthwhile and when it isn't, b

by toolz 3y ago

Well I mean that's the logical conclusion to what these regulations achieve. Don't get me wrong, I don't claim to know when it's worthwhile and when it isn't, but these regulations force companies pushing the envelope with new tech to slow down and do things differently. The intention is always good*, the outcome sometimes isn't. One doesn't have to affiliate with any political party to see this. *Charitably I think we can all agree there's likely someone with good intentions behind every regulation. I do understand that the whole or even the majority of intention behind some regulations may not be good.

messe 3y ago
I don’t disagree, and I probably shouldn’t have put “stifling innovation” in quotes, as you’re right: that is the goal here. My criticism is more levied at those who treat the fact that regulations can increase the cost of doing business as inherently bad without stopping to consider that profits may not be the be all and end all.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Not the be all and end all - but I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money. Generally those transactions are welfare improving. Indeed, significant improvements in welfare over the last century can be largely traced to the bubbling up of transactions like these. Sure, redistribute the winnings later on - but picking winners and banning certain transactions should be approached with skepticism. There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious (e.g. climate change) or agreed upon by most people.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    > "I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money." > "There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious" Wireheading. An obesity crisis[1] which costs $173Bn/year of medical treatment. $45Bn/year in lost productivity due to dental treatments[2]. Over half the uk drinking alcohol at harmful levels[3]. Hours of social media use per day linked to depressive symptoms and mental health issues[4]. People are manipulable. Sellers will supply as much temptation as the market will bear. We can't keep pretending that humans are perfectly rational massless chickens. Having CocaCola lobbying to sell in vending machines in schools, while TikTok catches children's attention and tells them they are fat and disgusting and just shrugging and saying the human caught in the middle should just pull on their self control bootstraps - society abandoning them to the monsters - is ridiculous, and gets more ridiculous year on year. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/oral_health_disparities/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/oral_health_disparities/index... [3] https://www.ias.org.uk/2023/01/30/what-happened-with-uk-alcohol-consumption-and-harm-in-2022/ https://www.ias.org.uk/2023/01/30/what-happened-with-uk-alco... [4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(18)30060-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      The children are mostly okay and I view this as a veil for conservatism because they don’t behave the same as you. Tiktok fat shaming is bad but leading your “society is dystopia” comment with obesity rates in the US is fine? More extensive redistribution rather than moral panic + regulation over tiktok. Let’s not waste time on speculative interventions.
      - jodrellblank 3y ago
        The Lancet[1] says "Childhood obesity rates have increased substantially over the past year in the UK, according to a new report from the UK Government's National Child Measurement Programme. This rise in prevalence is the largest single-year increase since the programme began 15 years ago and highlights the worldwide rising trend for obesity among children and adolescents [...] it is now an undeniable public health crisis." and "a US study reported an increase in recreational screen time of almost 4 h a day in children aged 12–13 years during the COVID-19 pandemic." Why do you think this is "mostly okay" and why is "mostly okay but getting worse" good enough for you? > "I view this as a veil for conservatism." I view this as sticking your head in the sand and trying to distract from it with a cheap insult. By 2030 do you think obesity prevalence will have gone up or down? Screen time? Depression levels? Happiness? Isolation? They've all been trending in bad directions for years, despite COVID. Smartphone apps aren't going to magically get fewer gambling mechanics and dark patterns, two hundred million people aren't magically going to stop responding to advertising and stop eating McDonalds, American cities aren't magically going to turn away from cars and pro-walking. > "Tiktok fat shaming is bad but leading your “society is dystopia” comment with obesity rates in the US is fine?"" Calling out a public health crisis isn't fat shaming, so yes it's fine. > "More extensive redistribution rather than moral panic + regulation over tiktok. Let’s not waste time on speculative interventions." You can't fix juvenile diabetes by taking cash from McDonalds and throwing it at the sick child, or the sick child's doctors. There's nothing speculative about this - companies engineer food to exploit our senses, and engineer advertising to exploit our weaknesses, we know it works, we see the results of it, and we should stop it. > "view this as a veil for conservatism because they don’t behave the same as you.*" It isn't about how they behave, it's about why we behave. The why is willful manipulation by companies which want profit and don't care about harming us to get it. The manipulation is effective, coersive, substantial, powerful, abhorrent. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00314-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...

by toolz 3y ago

messe 3y ago

I don’t disagree, and I probably shouldn’t have put “stifling innovation” in quotes, as you’re right: that is the goal here. My criticism is more levied at those who treat the fact that regulations can increase the cost of doing business as inherently bad without stopping to consider that profits may not be the be all and end all.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Not the be all and end all - but I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money. Generally those transactions are welfare improving. Indeed, significant improvements in welfare over the last century can be largely traced to the bubbling up of transactions like these. Sure, redistribute the winnings later on - but picking winners and banning certain transactions should be approached with skepticism. There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious (e.g. climate change) or agreed upon by most people.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "I do think there should be a strong presumption in favor of activities that consist of providing people with something they want in exchange for money." > "There should be significant foreseen externalities that are either evidentially obvious" Wireheading. An obesity crisis[1] which costs $173Bn/year of medical treatment. $45Bn/year in lost productivity due to dental treatments[2]. Over half the uk drinking alcohol at harmful levels[3]. Hours of social media use per day linked to depressive symptoms and mental health issues[4]. People are manipulable. Sellers will supply as much temptation as the market will bear. We can't keep pretending that humans are perfectly rational massless chickens. Having CocaCola lobbying to sell in vending machines in schools, while TikTok catches children's attention and tells them they are fat and disgusting and just shrugging and saying the human caught in the middle should just pull on their self control bootstraps - society abandoning them to the monsters - is ridiculous, and gets more ridiculous year on year. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/oral_health_disparities/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/oral_health_disparities/index... [3] https://www.ias.org.uk/2023/01/30/what-happened-with-uk-alcohol-consumption-and-harm-in-2022/ https://www.ias.org.uk/2023/01/30/what-happened-with-uk-alco... [4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(18)30060-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    The children are mostly okay and I view this as a veil for conservatism because they don’t behave the same as you. Tiktok fat shaming is bad but leading your “society is dystopia” comment with obesity rates in the US is fine? More extensive redistribution rather than moral panic + regulation over tiktok. Let’s not waste time on speculative interventions.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      The Lancet[1] says "Childhood obesity rates have increased substantially over the past year in the UK, according to a new report from the UK Government's National Child Measurement Programme. This rise in prevalence is the largest single-year increase since the programme began 15 years ago and highlights the worldwide rising trend for obesity among children and adolescents [...] it is now an undeniable public health crisis." and "a US study reported an increase in recreational screen time of almost 4 h a day in children aged 12–13 years during the COVID-19 pandemic." Why do you think this is "mostly okay" and why is "mostly okay but getting worse" good enough for you? > "I view this as a veil for conservatism." I view this as sticking your head in the sand and trying to distract from it with a cheap insult. By 2030 do you think obesity prevalence will have gone up or down? Screen time? Depression levels? Happiness? Isolation? They've all been trending in bad directions for years, despite COVID. Smartphone apps aren't going to magically get fewer gambling mechanics and dark patterns, two hundred million people aren't magically going to stop responding to advertising and stop eating McDonalds, American cities aren't magically going to turn away from cars and pro-walking. > "Tiktok fat shaming is bad but leading your “society is dystopia” comment with obesity rates in the US is fine?"" Calling out a public health crisis isn't fat shaming, so yes it's fine. > "More extensive redistribution rather than moral panic + regulation over tiktok. Let’s not waste time on speculative interventions." You can't fix juvenile diabetes by taking cash from McDonalds and throwing it at the sick child, or the sick child's doctors. There's nothing speculative about this - companies engineer food to exploit our senses, and engineer advertising to exploit our weaknesses, we know it works, we see the results of it, and we should stop it. > "view this as a veil for conservatism because they don’t behave the same as you.*" It isn't about how they behave, it's about why we behave. The why is willful manipulation by companies which want profit and don't care about harming us to get it. The manipulation is effective, coersive, substantial, powerful, abhorrent. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00314-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...