3 ms·

>I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. I have a big problem with companie

>I have a big problem with a government forcing companies to enable toggles on features because users complain about the UX. I have a big problem with companies forcing me to use garbage I don't want to use. >If there are problems with copyright, that's an issue for the courts -- not a user toggle. But in the meantime, companies can just get away with breaking the law. >If you have problems with the electricity, then that's an issue for electricity infrastructure regulations. But in the meantime, companies can drive up the cost of electricity with reckless abandon. >If you think it doens't work, then don't use it. I wish I lived in your world where I can opt out of all of this AI garbage. >Passing a law forcing a company to turn off a legal feature by default is absurd. "Legal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You know the court system is slow, and companies running roughshod over the law until the litigation works itself out "because they're all already doing it anyway" is par for the course. AirBnB should've been illegal, but by the time we went to litigate it, it was too big. Spotify sold pirated music until it was too big to litigate. How convenient that this keeps happening. To the casual observer, it would almost seem intentional, but no, it's probably just some crazy coincidence. >It's no different from asking a publisher to censor pages of a book that some people don't like, and make them available only by a second mail-order purchase to the publisher. That's censorship. Forcing companies to stop being deleterious to society is not censorship, and it isn't Handmaid's Tale to enforce a semblance of consumer rights.

crazygringo 11mo ago
> I have a big problem with companies forcing me to use garbage I don't want to use. That pretty much sums it up. And the answer is: too bad. Deal with it, like the rest of us. I have a big problem with companies not sending me a check for a million dollars. But companies don't obey my whims. And I'm not going to complain that the government should do something about it, because that would be silly and immature. In reality, companies try their best to build products that make money, and they compete with each other to do so. These principles have led to amazing products. And as long as no consumers are being harmed (e.g. fraud, safety, etc.), asking the government to interfere in product decisions is a terrible idea. The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. Just because you or a group of people personally don't like a particular product isn't a reason to overturn the free market and start asking the government to interfere with product design. Because if you start down that path, pretty soon they're going to be interfering with the things you like.
- venturecruelty 11mo ago
  >That pretty much sums it up. And the answer is: too bad. Deal with it, like the rest of us. I am dealing with it, thanks, by fighting against it. >I have a big problem with companies not sending me a check for a million dollars. But companies don't obey my whims. And I'm not going to complain that the government should do something about it, because that would be silly and immature. Because as we all know, forcing you to use the abusive copyright laundering slop machine is exactly morally equivalent to not getting arbitrary cheques in the mail. >In reality, companies try their best to build products that make money, and they compete with each other to do so. In the Atlas Shrugged cinematic universe, maybe. Now, companies try to extract as much as they can by doing as little as possible. Who was Google competing with for their AI summmary, when it's so laughably bad, and the only people who want it are the people whose paycheques depend on it, or people who want engagement on LinkedIn? >The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. Nobody wants this! >Because if you start down that path, pretty soon they're going to be interfering with the things you like. I mean, they're doing that, too, and people like you look down your nose and tell me to take that abuse as well. So no, I'm not going to sit idly by and watch these parasites ruin what shreds of humanity I have left.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    >> The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. > Nobody wants this! OK, well if you don't believe in the free market then sure. Good luck seeing how well state ownership manages the economy and if it does a better job at delivering the software features you want, or even of putting food on your table. Because the entire history of the twentieth century says you're not going to like it.
    - ajkjk 11mo ago
      "regulating corporate overreach = state ownership" Huh. Your argument boils down to "it is wrong for people to defend themselves from corporations", but the cases you're making are incoherent. It seems like you believe this but don't know why you believe it and you're making up gibberish to defend it. I'd suggest you stop and analyze why you believe this--like what you really think will happen, and why you really think people do not have a right to defend themselves. Personally I can think of no situation where it is moral to say: people should not defend themselves. The concept seems absurd. To me all of human history is evidence that people do, always, have a right to defend themselves, and much evil has been perpetrated by the notion that they should sit down endure abuses instead.

crazygringo 11mo ago

> I have a big problem with companies forcing me to use garbage I don't want to use. That pretty much sums it up. And the answer is: too bad. Deal with it, like the rest of us. I have a big problem with companies not sending me a check for a million dollars. But companies don't obey my whims. And I'm not going to complain that the government should do something about it, because that would be silly and immature. In reality, companies try their best to build products that make money, and they compete with each other to do so. These principles have led to amazing products. And as long as no consumers are being harmed (e.g. fraud, safety, etc.), asking the government to interfere in product decisions is a terrible idea. The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. Just because you or a group of people personally don't like a particular product isn't a reason to overturn the free market and start asking the government to interfere with product design. Because if you start down that path, pretty soon they're going to be interfering with the things you like.

venturecruelty 11mo ago
>That pretty much sums it up. And the answer is: too bad. Deal with it, like the rest of us. I am dealing with it, thanks, by fighting against it. >I have a big problem with companies not sending me a check for a million dollars. But companies don't obey my whims. And I'm not going to complain that the government should do something about it, because that would be silly and immature. Because as we all know, forcing you to use the abusive copyright laundering slop machine is exactly morally equivalent to not getting arbitrary cheques in the mail. >In reality, companies try their best to build products that make money, and they compete with each other to do so. In the Atlas Shrugged cinematic universe, maybe. Now, companies try to extract as much as they can by doing as little as possible. Who was Google competing with for their AI summmary, when it's so laughably bad, and the only people who want it are the people whose paycheques depend on it, or people who want engagement on LinkedIn? >The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. Nobody wants this! >Because if you start down that path, pretty soon they're going to be interfering with the things you like. I mean, they're doing that, too, and people like you look down your nose and tell me to take that abuse as well. So no, I'm not going to sit idly by and watch these parasites ruin what shreds of humanity I have left.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  >> The free market exists because it does a better job than any other system at giving consumers what they want. > Nobody wants this! OK, well if you don't believe in the free market then sure. Good luck seeing how well state ownership manages the economy and if it does a better job at delivering the software features you want, or even of putting food on your table. Because the entire history of the twentieth century says you're not going to like it.
  - ajkjk 11mo ago
    "regulating corporate overreach = state ownership" Huh. Your argument boils down to "it is wrong for people to defend themselves from corporations", but the cases you're making are incoherent. It seems like you believe this but don't know why you believe it and you're making up gibberish to defend it. I'd suggest you stop and analyze why you believe this--like what you really think will happen, and why you really think people do not have a right to defend themselves. Personally I can think of no situation where it is moral to say: people should not defend themselves. The concept seems absurd. To me all of human history is evidence that people do, always, have a right to defend themselves, and much evil has been perpetrated by the notion that they should sit down endure abuses instead.