4 ms·
It should just be universally required to give an option to disable addictive features. Should prevent age verification, and giving users optionality is always
by senorcrab 3mo ago
It should just be universally required to give an option to disable addictive features. Should prevent age verification, and giving users optionality is always a good thing (for them).
- mdp2021 3mo ago> Should prevent age verification It won't, become some parties are proposing a narrative of "shielding the innocent from harmful content" (such as themselves). keir starmer seems to suppose nudity would be indecent, against an implicitly stated decent itself and british politics.
- senorcrab 3mo agoYeah I meant it would avoid the necessity of age verification to solve this problem. Age verification and how enthusiastic gov'ts are about it is concerning.
- iamnothere 3mo agoHow will you measure purely psychological addiction using a neutral process that can’t be easily captured by political interests? That said, I like the idea of an option. Options are good!
- senorcrab 3mo agoClearly there is a fuzzy line of demarcation. I was thinking for a simple opt-out of any rec-sys
- iamnothere 3mo agoWhile I’m uncomfortable with any legislation regarding the presentation of speech, in fact it’s definitely unconstitutional, this isn’t bad if you ignore the 1A issues. Hard to ignore that though
- Paracompact 3mo agoWhy do some Americans build their whole political and philosophical personality off of 1A maximalism? I'm an American, and it's a great principle. Freedom of speech deserves to be enshrined in the Constitution as a Good Thing, up there with the pursuit of happiness, freedom of the press, and all else. But this idea that nothing that ever even tangentially inconvenience's someone's (or some megacorporation's) expression is a legislative no-go, is a weirdly religious amount of conviction in an abstract principle. This principle, like every other in the Constitution, must carry finite weight.
- iamnothere 3mo agoThe amendment process is there for a reason. We must begin to use (and respect) it again, or fall as a country. That’s my take.
- protocolture 3mo agoNot an american but I would rather enshrine freedom of communication, and just explode the corporations I dont like because they suck. Theres no "freedom to be a corporation". In fact just end the limitation of corporate liability and let the courts sort it out. A lot simpler than targeting a random expression of communication in protcols courts dont understand.
- iamnothere 3mo agoThis would be 100% constitutional. Corporations are a legal construct, the law gave them and the law can take them away.
- seydor 3mo agoI find the reply button to be pretty addictive