5 ms·
Pretty simple. If you don't make it illegal, they will do it.
by fph 2y ago
Pretty simple. If you don't make it illegal, they will do it.
- moi2388 2y agoAnd even if you do make it illegal they will still do it, since fines are a mere fraction of the revenue generated from said illicit activities
- scarab92 2y agoOne thing that annoys me about western society is this default assumption that everything should be illegal. How about we wait until someone can demonstrate real harm in the real world. Then we can discuss what mitigations are available, what trade offs we want to make, then as an absolute last resort we can make things illegal. This also applies to censorship. Looking at you Britain.
- defrost 2y agoFixing the stable door after the horse has bolted? Yep. Great plan.
- scarab92 2y agoIt’s a public company. If it ever actually turns out to be a problem, we’ll just make a law that requires them to delete the data / model.
- Lio 2y agoIt’s a foreign public company. If Australia make a law requiring them to delete the data Facebook will just use an offshore copy, since they’ve already exported it. Facebook/Meta is not a company with a moral compass. If it can get away with something, regardless of the harm it causes, it will.
- scarab92 2y agoHow is that any different to banning it upfront and Facebook continuing to do it anyway? Australia’s leverage against a US company is the same whether they try to enact a ban now or later.
- seszett 2y agoDelete it after it's already been publicly released, like Llama?
- wiseowise 2y agoI guess f** affected people and kids, right? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpdlpj9zn9go.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpdlpj9zn9go.amp
- inglor_cz 2y agoBanning everything because we don't like change isn't a great plan either. The modern society is a product of the Industrial Revolution, which had many nasty side effects (destroyed the traditional structure of the society, poisoned the air and the water, led to large swaths of land being damaged by mining etc.) Yet if, say, Prussia or France decided to ban industry early on because of the very real harms observed in England, they would have been conquered mercilessly by their foes later. Technological bans often come at a price of stagnation. Facebook is at least a bit under Western control and can be regulated. Chinese AI labs won't be, and we will only see their results when smart missiles start raining on our heads.
- defrost 2y agoWho said anything about banning everything though? That smells like a strawman. Fools rush in is a warning against not diving headfirst into doing whatever you feel like doing just because you can, it's not advocacy for "banning everything".
- scarab92 2y agoPeople are talking about banning something, when they can’t even outline a real harm that the ban is intended to avoid. If that’s the threshold, then we are genuinely talking about banning everything by default.
- defrost 2y ago> People are talking about banning something, That'd be inglor_cz above. > when they can’t even outline a real harm that the ban is intended to avoid. Unsurprising when { something } (for various values of something) has never been done before. The wise course of action is to not rush full bore into, say, handing out sticks of dynamite, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste, allowing third parties in other countries to digitize citizens, etc. etc. until time has been taken to look into pootential harms.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
- jay_kyburz 2y agoI don't know what part of the west you are pointing at, but that's pretty much how it works here in Australia. That's why are farmers are getting Parkinson's, and cars are too big for the roads, and there is too much sugar in everything, and social media platforms can broadcast whatever they want with no repercussions.
- scarab92 2y agoWe didn’t know about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s until recently, and even now it’s still being debated. If it turns out to be proven, then it will be banned. What alternative do you propose? Banning every chemical in society, just in case it is linked to a disease one day?
- jay_kyburz 2y agoI was just pointing out that's how the west works. sheesh. I'll just go back to cooking my dinner in a Teflon pan, on my artificial stone benchtop, in my asbestos clad kitchen, while smoking cigarettes, and something about lead paint.
- Eisenstein 2y agoHow about we empower panels of experts in their fields to make decisions based on rational and informed consensus and then revise those decisions every so often, so that we don't have to personally choose to ban everything or nothing?
- scarab92 2y agoWell, no expert would have figured out the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s. There’s no test for this. The only it was detected was by studying a weak association after decades of use. The same is likely to be true for all other pesticides in use. So what do we do? Ban them, or allow rhem?
- wiseowise 2y ago> What alternative do you propose? Banning every chemical in society, just in case it is linked to a disease one day? Fucking yes, Jesus Christ, does it need to be spelled out? My God, imagine you’re consuming some shite for 10 years only to discover you’re a vegetable or deadman at 40. Are you insane?
- bhawks 2y agoWestern society today, but it didn't start this way. The nanny state is really only a couple decades old. Government has realized it can take significant powers if it can convince a subset of the populace that it is the only way to protect them from some type of harm.
- Eisenstein 2y agoIt is possible that the 'nanny state' is both good in some ways and bad in others. You and I benefit in uncountable ways every day from the protections granted by such a system, without realizing it. Nuance is tough. It is easier to find a simple thing to blame and advocate against it. But nothing is simple -- governments are composed of people and those people have inside them conflicting motivations, each person's different than the other -- and most of them are not malicious. The same with business, and with the public. Let's look at issues on their own and not try to categorize everything as part of a black and white choice.
- scarab92 2y agoSociety benefits from allowing new inventions then banning those that turn out to be harmful, once the harm is clear. The result is that you keep the good inventions and discard the harmful ones. What people are proposing here is to preemptively ban new inventions even when there’s no evidence of harm. It’s not a good idea because while it will stop the bad inventions, it will also stop the good ones.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 2y agoThere is a concept of 'risk'. Making any choice, yea or nay, comes with risks, and they should be evaluated and acted up as per the risk tolerance of people at the time. You are saying that we should disregard any rational evaluation of potential risks on one side and only choose one option all the time. Is that a logical position to hold?
- chpatrick 2y agoWorked great for social media.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoThat's dangerous, because mitigations after the fact can be very far reaching. Not only dangerous for users, but also companies. So lets imagine it for a moment, that something like this needs to be mitigated: Who used any resulting model to create anything at all? In which cases did something too similar to a real person result from the usage? How do we track all that down and delete it? Then we will need some IT guys coming over to the conpany in question going through their stuff, to ensure that all remnants are deleted, which only happens after looking at possibly millions of logs, to know who got those too similar results in the first place. Making right after the fact always has a potential to be magnitudes more work than not allowing someone to use some personal data.
- scarab92 2y agoIt’s always going to be easier to ban every new invention. But public policy shouldn’t be based on what’s easiest, it should be based on what’s best for society, and that requires considering the trade offs. Right now there’s no evidence that anything Facebook are doing causes real world harm, so the trade off favours allowing it. If that changes, then policy can change at the same time.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago> But public policy shouldn’t be based on what’s easiest, it should be based on what’s best for society, and that requires considering the trade offs. Surely that is not simply grabbing people's personal data and using it for new purposes without consent. > Right now there’s no evidence that anything Facebook are doing causes real world harm, so the trade off favours allowing it. If I had been living under a rock, I might have claimed this. However, FB is complicit in genocide, so naah, not so sure about that claim. I would rather we have a very close eye on them.
- moi2388 2y agoWho makes the assumption that everything should be illegal, other than you just now? My comment deals with if something has already been deemed illegal.