4 ms·

What is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over software critical to exist in society?

crazygringo 11mo ago
> over software critical to exist in society? I don't know what that means grammatically. But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? The answer is, because it infringes on freedom. As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone -- if your only complaint is you find their presence annoying, in a product you have a free choice in using or not using -- then there's no democratic justification for passing laws against them. Democratic rights take precedence.
- esseph 11mo ago
  Newsflash If voters Democratically decide to do something, that's democracy at work.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    "Newsflash", the entire point of constitutions that enumerate rights is that fundamental rights and freedoms may not be abridged even by majority decision. If a Supreme Court strikes down a majority-passed law limiting free speech guaranteed by the Constitution, that's democracy at work.
    - esseph 11mo ago
      If they can't be abridged, then why do we have amendments? And no, that would be the courts at work, which may or may not be beholden to the whims of other political figures.
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        It takes more than majority vote to add a new amendment. Go ahead and try, but I don't think you'll find that an amendment to restrict people's freedoms is going to be very popular. Because it will be seen as anti-democratic.
        esseph 11mo ago
        I mean you said 60 percent yourself, that would be a majority decision, and a democratic one. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. Voters restrict their own freedoms all the time. Hell, my state recently passed a law preventing Ranked Choice voting.
        crazygringo 11mo ago
        I'm not following you. I didn't say 60%? And 60% is a supermajority, not a majority. Which is a huge distinction. And US constitutional amendments require much stricter thresholds than that -- two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states. That's a gigantic bar. Yes voters try to restrict their own freedoms all the time. We have constitutions with rights to block them from doing that in fundamental ways. That's what protection from tyranny of the majority is all about. Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you're allowed to take away rights. That's a fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy isn't just majority rule -- it's the protection of rights as well.
- collingreen 11mo ago
  This is the argument against all customer protection as well as things like health codes, right? Nobody is FORCING you to go to that restaurant so it's antidemocracy to take away their freedom to not wash their hands when they cook?
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Please see the part of my comment where I say as long as it's not harming anyone.
- lenkite 11mo ago
  > As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone Why do you say this ? They are clearly harming the privacy of people. Or you don't in privacy as a right ? But, a lot of people do - democratically.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    If you can show it's harming privacy, then regulate the privacy. That's legitimate. But I assume you're talking about AI training, not feature usage. Trying to regulate whether an end-user feature is available just because you don't "like" AI creep is no different from trying to regulate that user interfaces ought to use flat design rather than 3D effects like buttons with shadows. It would be an illegitimate use of government power.
- smt88 11mo ago
  You're trying to make it sound like a corporation's right to force AI on us is equivalent to an individual's right to speech, which is idiotic in its face. But I'd also point out that speech is regulated in the US, so you're still not making the point you think you're making. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as Google and Apple have a monopoly on smartphone software, they should be regulated into the ground. Consumers have no alternatives, especially if they have a job.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    It's not "idiotic on its face" and that's not appropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Code and software are very much forms of speech in a legal sense. And free speech is regulated in cases of harm, like violent threats or libel. But there's no harm here in any legal sense. People are just unhappy with the product UX -- that there are buttons and areas dedicated to AI features. Companies should absolutely have the freedom to build the products they want as long as there's no actual harm. If you merely don't like a UX, use a competing product. If you don't like the UX of any product, then tough. Products aren't usually perfectly what you want, and that's OK.
    - smt88 11mo ago
      You're completely ignoring the most important point I raised, which is that I can't use a competing product. I can't stop using Microsoft, Google, Meta, or Apple products and still be a part of my industry or US society.
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        So what's your argument? You're not being forced to use the AI features. If you don't want to use them, don't use them. There's zero antitrust or anticompetitive issue here. Your argument that Google and Apple should be "regulated into the ground" isn't an argument. It's a vengeful emotion or part of a vague ideology or something. If I want blenders to be sold in bright orange, but the three brands at my local store are all black or silver, I really don't think it's right for the government should pass a law requiring stores to carry blenders in bright orange. But that's what you're asking for, for the government to determine which features software products have.
- MangoToupe 11mo ago
  > But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? What an asinine comparison lol
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    > What an asinine comparison lol https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - MangoToupe 11mo ago
      Bruh learn to take responsibility for your behavior
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        "Bruh", please read the guidelines. Your comments are completely inappropriate for HN.
- account42 11mo ago
  Making sure people have the option not to listen to your "speech" is not control over people's free speech.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    It absolutely is. When I buy a book, I don't want the government deciding in advance which paragraphs should be included, and which paragraphs people "shouldn't have to listen to". So I don't want it doing that with software either. It's the same thing. You don't have to buy that book in the first place. The same way you don't have to use a piece of software.

> over software critical to exist in society? I don't know what that means grammatically. But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? The answer is, because it infringes on freedom. As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone -- if your only complaint is you find their presence annoying, in a product you have a free choice in using or not using -- then there's no democratic justification for passing laws against them. Democratic rights take precedence.

esseph 11mo ago
Newsflash If voters Democratically decide to do something, that's democracy at work.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  "Newsflash", the entire point of constitutions that enumerate rights is that fundamental rights and freedoms may not be abridged even by majority decision. If a Supreme Court strikes down a majority-passed law limiting free speech guaranteed by the Constitution, that's democracy at work.
  - esseph 11mo ago
    If they can't be abridged, then why do we have amendments? And no, that would be the courts at work, which may or may not be beholden to the whims of other political figures.
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      It takes more than majority vote to add a new amendment. Go ahead and try, but I don't think you'll find that an amendment to restrict people's freedoms is going to be very popular. Because it will be seen as anti-democratic.
      - esseph 11mo ago
        I mean you said 60 percent yourself, that would be a majority decision, and a democratic one. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. Voters restrict their own freedoms all the time. Hell, my state recently passed a law preventing Ranked Choice voting.
        crazygringo 11mo ago
        I'm not following you. I didn't say 60%? And 60% is a supermajority, not a majority. Which is a huge distinction. And US constitutional amendments require much stricter thresholds than that -- two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states. That's a gigantic bar. Yes voters try to restrict their own freedoms all the time. We have constitutions with rights to block them from doing that in fundamental ways. That's what protection from tyranny of the majority is all about. Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you're allowed to take away rights. That's a fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy isn't just majority rule -- it's the protection of rights as well.
collingreen 11mo ago
This is the argument against all customer protection as well as things like health codes, right? Nobody is FORCING you to go to that restaurant so it's antidemocracy to take away their freedom to not wash their hands when they cook?
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Please see the part of my comment where I say as long as it's not harming anyone.
lenkite 11mo ago
> As long as these AI features aren't harming anyone Why do you say this ? They are clearly harming the privacy of people. Or you don't in privacy as a right ? But, a lot of people do - democratically.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  If you can show it's harming privacy, then regulate the privacy. That's legitimate. But I assume you're talking about AI training, not feature usage. Trying to regulate whether an end-user feature is available just because you don't "like" AI creep is no different from trying to regulate that user interfaces ought to use flat design rather than 3D effects like buttons with shadows. It would be an illegitimate use of government power.
smt88 11mo ago
You're trying to make it sound like a corporation's right to force AI on us is equivalent to an individual's right to speech, which is idiotic in its face. But I'd also point out that speech is regulated in the US, so you're still not making the point you think you're making. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as Google and Apple have a monopoly on smartphone software, they should be regulated into the ground. Consumers have no alternatives, especially if they have a job.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  It's not "idiotic on its face" and that's not appropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Code and software are very much forms of speech in a legal sense. And free speech is regulated in cases of harm, like violent threats or libel. But there's no harm here in any legal sense. People are just unhappy with the product UX -- that there are buttons and areas dedicated to AI features. Companies should absolutely have the freedom to build the products they want as long as there's no actual harm. If you merely don't like a UX, use a competing product. If you don't like the UX of any product, then tough. Products aren't usually perfectly what you want, and that's OK.
  - smt88 11mo ago
    You're completely ignoring the most important point I raised, which is that I can't use a competing product. I can't stop using Microsoft, Google, Meta, or Apple products and still be a part of my industry or US society.
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      So what's your argument? You're not being forced to use the AI features. If you don't want to use them, don't use them. There's zero antitrust or anticompetitive issue here. Your argument that Google and Apple should be "regulated into the ground" isn't an argument. It's a vengeful emotion or part of a vague ideology or something. If I want blenders to be sold in bright orange, but the three brands at my local store are all black or silver, I really don't think it's right for the government should pass a law requiring stores to carry blenders in bright orange. But that's what you're asking for, for the government to determine which features software products have.
MangoToupe 11mo ago
> But you could ask, what is so terrifying about exerting democratic control over people's free speech, over the political opinions they're allowed to express? What an asinine comparison lol
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  > What an asinine comparison lol https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - MangoToupe 11mo ago
    Bruh learn to take responsibility for your behavior
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      "Bruh", please read the guidelines. Your comments are completely inappropriate for HN.
account42 11mo ago
Making sure people have the option not to listen to your "speech" is not control over people's free speech.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  It absolutely is. When I buy a book, I don't want the government deciding in advance which paragraphs should be included, and which paragraphs people "shouldn't have to listen to". So I don't want it doing that with software either. It's the same thing. You don't have to buy that book in the first place. The same way you don't have to use a piece of software.