5 ms·

It's interesting that Congress is talking about sunsetting section 230 which provides protection for web sites that display user generated content from being re

It's interesting that Congress is talking about sunsetting section 230 which provides protection for web sites that display user generated content from being responsible for what that content says, and what Amazon wants here is apparently the equivalent for drop-ship/forwarding sales companies and the products those companies ship through them. But the argument is that safety agencies are unconstitutional? For me, this suggests a high level of dysfunction in the Government if people asking for things from the Government do so using the biases of the people in power as the basis for their argument rather than reasoning to it by some set of principles. I don't know how much of this article was inferred by the person writing it and how much accurately reflects Amazon's position, so I can't draw strong conclusions from it but it's an interesting reflection on the extreme 'buyer beware' attitude of cut throat businesses that take no responsibility for the harms they inflict on their own customers.

jfengel 2y ago
That just kinda follows from democracy. Principles are for voters. Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). If they went back to first principles, and disagreed with their constituents, they'd lose. The closest thing you get to principles are civil servants, who are hired for their domain expertise. But voters grumble because those civil servants aren't elected; they are basically self propagating by hiring their successors. That actually used to kinda work. There was enough inertia to keep elections from making everything about people's moods, and enough input from Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS to keep it competent. But the mood has shifted to extreme distrust of those institutions. So they're getting wiped out in one fell swoop. There is a principle in place, but it's the principle that the government itself is irreparable.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Even if you’re deluded to the point where you’re convinced government can’t work, what is your end game? People who can only criticize never offer solutions, but are always happy to profit from the work of others. Like Ayn Rand who was dependent on social security handouts. Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    While I broadly agree with your point, I think it's easy to say that the end game for many is a change in sovereignty — who gets to define what "OK" even means.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Government can work. All it needs is for voters to not actively hate each other. Democracy works when the politicians all agree that the good of the community as a whole matters. That works in a lot of places. It's not perfect but it really is the best option. If your citizens do hate each other, there really isn't any system that can work. I don't have an end game in that scenario, except to wait for it to collapse and hopefully be replaced by something else.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    > Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book. Tangent maybe, but talking about where the rubber literally meets the road gets pretty interesting. Because government programs focus on politically important places, those places that are not politically important tend to have worse roads. Lots of people in those places do not care much, because they have big trucks with big tires. But once politically unimportant people are paying for bigger tires for decades, and getting hit with inflation on those tires, and still paying for other roads in other places that don't benefit them.. they get fed up eventually and this leads to the rise of angry populism and the desire to tear down road-building institutions. Doing this seems like it can't make anything worse, and will only help them be able to pay for their next flat tire, and they know that the flat is going to happen regardless of whether city-dwellers get to enjoy a new turnpike. This is an oversimplification, but on the other hand, it really is pretty simple. Labeling anyone as a hypocritical profiteer since they "benefit" from crappy roads that were actually paid for in full many years ago and neglected since then is one way to think about this I guess. But you could also say that it's natural for rural people to object strongly to that part of the wealth pump that actually affects them, and it really is more likely to be a function of government itself rather than corporatism. (This is because they have no disposable income to throw at corporations when there's not enough left after taxes.) Whereas urban people are just more likely to object to the part of the wealth pump that affects them, and that's less about government and more about corporatism. The rural/urban divide will only be cured when everyone agrees that all wealth pumps are unsustainable, instead of spending all their energy fighting about how to get on the most of profitable side of the pumps. I'm not saying the rural people in this scenario are not misguided.. but if you're completely baffled by support for things like MAGA and DOGE, then it's probably worthwhile to reflect on this.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). There was a time when I thought this. Some observations cast strong doubt on it. Primarily: how close congressional votes track with major campaign contributions and the revolving door where major donors later reward officials who voted for their interests It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters.
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. "Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)." should be: "Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)." > It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters. Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class: "Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1] They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people". It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-warlocks-patron-guide/ https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...
    - jfengel 2y ago
      Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.
- faster 2y ago
  I recently started reading a great book called "Democracy for Realists". Voters may believe that they are electing someone who will represent their principles, but that is not how it works. This is a good summary of the book: https://sppe.lse.ac.uk/articles/52 https://sppe.lse.ac.uk/articles/52
  - schoen 2y ago
    The review you linked to is pretty critical of the book. Do you have an opinion about its criticisms?
- anon84873628 2y ago
  "Tyranny of the majority" and "paradox of tolerance" are both problems for Democracy. And solving for both creates a tension that is almost a paradox itself. So elected officials also need to be able to manage their constituents, push back on the masses, and explain why compromise / commitment to values / etc are important in society. As you say, this requires some level of trust in officials which sadly has deteriorated.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  That's a property of democracy with very small districts. With larger districts (and proportional elections or something similar), it's enough that a few percent of the voters support you. Carving yourself a niche and sticking to it then becomes a viable strategy for re-election.
- armada651 2y ago
  > Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). Elected officials do what their corporate contributors want. They then convince a small minority of voters that that's what they want and then their party redraws voting districts to ensure that their votes have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the next election.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > The closest thing you get to principles are civil servants, who are hired for their domain expertise. But voters grumble because those civil servants aren't elected; they are basically self propagating by hiring their successors It’s a principle-agent problem. Civil servants have principles and act on them, but they’re not necessarily the principles voters share.
bdangubic 2y ago
agreee except if people asking for things from the Government… - in this case they are asking Government to butt out :)
- ChuckMcM 2y ago
  FWIW I consider that a form of asking, "stop doing this" :-)
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> It's interesting that Congress is talking about sunsetting section 230 Congress will never stop talking about Sec230. Early on it was because 230 hampered thin-skinned congress people from disappearing speech they didn't like. ref:https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/19/rep-devin-nunes-sues-internet-cow-saying-mean-things-about-him-online/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/19/rep-devin-nunes-sues-int... Modern attacks on 230 are more likely to enabled by major platforms, who are the only ones who can afford to defend legal attacks on user speech. ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

jfengel 2y ago

That just kinda follows from democracy. Principles are for voters. Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). If they went back to first principles, and disagreed with their constituents, they'd lose. The closest thing you get to principles are civil servants, who are hired for their domain expertise. But voters grumble because those civil servants aren't elected; they are basically self propagating by hiring their successors. That actually used to kinda work. There was enough inertia to keep elections from making everything about people's moods, and enough input from Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS to keep it competent. But the mood has shifted to extreme distrust of those institutions. So they're getting wiped out in one fell swoop. There is a principle in place, but it's the principle that the government itself is irreparable.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
Even if you’re deluded to the point where you’re convinced government can’t work, what is your end game? People who can only criticize never offer solutions, but are always happy to profit from the work of others. Like Ayn Rand who was dependent on social security handouts. Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book.
- ben_w 2y ago
  While I broadly agree with your point, I think it's easy to say that the end game for many is a change in sovereignty — who gets to define what "OK" even means.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Government can work. All it needs is for voters to not actively hate each other. Democracy works when the politicians all agree that the good of the community as a whole matters. That works in a lot of places. It's not perfect but it really is the best option. If your citizens do hate each other, there really isn't any system that can work. I don't have an end game in that scenario, except to wait for it to collapse and hopefully be replaced by something else.
- photonthug 2y ago
  > Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book. Tangent maybe, but talking about where the rubber literally meets the road gets pretty interesting. Because government programs focus on politically important places, those places that are not politically important tend to have worse roads. Lots of people in those places do not care much, because they have big trucks with big tires. But once politically unimportant people are paying for bigger tires for decades, and getting hit with inflation on those tires, and still paying for other roads in other places that don't benefit them.. they get fed up eventually and this leads to the rise of angry populism and the desire to tear down road-building institutions. Doing this seems like it can't make anything worse, and will only help them be able to pay for their next flat tire, and they know that the flat is going to happen regardless of whether city-dwellers get to enjoy a new turnpike. This is an oversimplification, but on the other hand, it really is pretty simple. Labeling anyone as a hypocritical profiteer since they "benefit" from crappy roads that were actually paid for in full many years ago and neglected since then is one way to think about this I guess. But you could also say that it's natural for rural people to object strongly to that part of the wealth pump that actually affects them, and it really is more likely to be a function of government itself rather than corporatism. (This is because they have no disposable income to throw at corporations when there's not enough left after taxes.) Whereas urban people are just more likely to object to the part of the wealth pump that affects them, and that's less about government and more about corporatism. The rural/urban divide will only be cured when everyone agrees that all wealth pumps are unsustainable, instead of spending all their energy fighting about how to get on the most of profitable side of the pumps. I'm not saying the rural people in this scenario are not misguided.. but if you're completely baffled by support for things like MAGA and DOGE, then it's probably worthwhile to reflect on this.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). There was a time when I thought this. Some observations cast strong doubt on it. Primarily: how close congressional votes track with major campaign contributions and the revolving door where major donors later reward officials who voted for their interests It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters.
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. "Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)." should be: "Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)." > It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters. Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class: "Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1] They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people". It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-warlocks-patron-guide/ https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.
faster 2y ago
I recently started reading a great book called "Democracy for Realists". Voters may believe that they are electing someone who will represent their principles, but that is not how it works. This is a good summary of the book: https://sppe.lse.ac.uk/articles/52 https://sppe.lse.ac.uk/articles/52
- schoen 2y ago
  The review you linked to is pretty critical of the book. Do you have an opinion about its criticisms?
anon84873628 2y ago
"Tyranny of the majority" and "paradox of tolerance" are both problems for Democracy. And solving for both creates a tension that is almost a paradox itself. So elected officials also need to be able to manage their constituents, push back on the masses, and explain why compromise / commitment to values / etc are important in society. As you say, this requires some level of trust in officials which sadly has deteriorated.
jltsiren 2y ago
That's a property of democracy with very small districts. With larger districts (and proportional elections or something similar), it's enough that a few percent of the voters support you. Carving yourself a niche and sticking to it then becomes a viable strategy for re-election.
armada651 2y ago
> Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). Elected officials do what their corporate contributors want. They then convince a small minority of voters that that's what they want and then their party redraws voting districts to ensure that their votes have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the next election.
rayiner 2y ago
> The closest thing you get to principles are civil servants, who are hired for their domain expertise. But voters grumble because those civil servants aren't elected; they are basically self propagating by hiring their successors It’s a principle-agent problem. Civil servants have principles and act on them, but they’re not necessarily the principles voters share.

bdangubic 2y ago

agreee except if people asking for things from the Government… - in this case they are asking Government to butt out :)

ChuckMcM 2y ago
FWIW I consider that a form of asking, "stop doing this" :-)

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> It's interesting that Congress is talking about sunsetting section 230 Congress will never stop talking about Sec230. Early on it was because 230 hampered thin-skinned congress people from disappearing speech they didn't like. ref:https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/19/rep-devin-nunes-sues-internet-cow-saying-mean-things-about-him-online/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/19/rep-devin-nunes-sues-int... Modern attacks on 230 are more likely to enabled by major platforms, who are the only ones who can afford to defend legal attacks on user speech. ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...