4 ms·

So I live in a nanny state, and I hate the fact that my freedom is restricted. Gun ownership of any kind is all but prohibited, for example. However I really w

So I live in a nanny state, and I hate the fact that my freedom is restricted. Gun ownership of any kind is all but prohibited, for example. However I really wish the discourse around this stuff would shift a little bit. I want my government to protect me from huge tech companies and the massive infringement on our privacy, community and culture. Like the government should serve the people, both by not restricting the freedoms of individuals too zealously, but also by protecting people from genuine threats that they can’t or won’t protect themselves from, such as social media companies exploiting network effects that make it basically impossible for users to make alternative choices. If you think otherwise please explain it to me because I really, genuinely want to understand.

scarab92 2y ago
Most new inventions have good outcomes and bad outcomes. The benefit of letting them play out for a while is that you can see how things ultimately turn out, and cherry pick the aspects that are worth keeping, decide what aspects are worth keeping with changes, and outlaw aspects that are harmful. It’s a natural experiment where you keep the wins, cancel the loses, then repeat the process, making societies iteratively better. If you just pre-emptively ban everything before any significant real world harm is apparent, then you lose the ability to be selective and keep the wins. This is Europe’s big mistake. They’re too eager to ban on gut feel, which means they ban too much, which places their industries at a disadvantage relative to other countries where iterative innovation can continue.
- left-struck 2y ago
  I dont disagree with what you’re saying in principle. However the Facebook experiment has been going on for decades, with multiple examples of unethical behaviour and a clear lack of any respect for privacy. Same can be said about basically any large tech company
fallingknife 2y ago
I just can't get my head around how anyone can think that posting pictures to social media in the first place reflects a desire for privacy or how using my photos as training data is a worse invasion of privacy than allowing millions of people to see them.

scarab92 2y ago

Most new inventions have good outcomes and bad outcomes. The benefit of letting them play out for a while is that you can see how things ultimately turn out, and cherry pick the aspects that are worth keeping, decide what aspects are worth keeping with changes, and outlaw aspects that are harmful. It’s a natural experiment where you keep the wins, cancel the loses, then repeat the process, making societies iteratively better. If you just pre-emptively ban everything before any significant real world harm is apparent, then you lose the ability to be selective and keep the wins. This is Europe’s big mistake. They’re too eager to ban on gut feel, which means they ban too much, which places their industries at a disadvantage relative to other countries where iterative innovation can continue.

left-struck 2y ago
I dont disagree with what you’re saying in principle. However the Facebook experiment has been going on for decades, with multiple examples of unethical behaviour and a clear lack of any respect for privacy. Same can be said about basically any large tech company

fallingknife 2y ago

I just can't get my head around how anyone can think that posting pictures to social media in the first place reflects a desire for privacy or how using my photos as training data is a worse invasion of privacy than allowing millions of people to see them.