Comment by acdha

> >99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware

> I do not agree with this. You are saying people are too stupid to make decisions and that is amoral in my opinion.

How much of the code running on your data do you personally inspect? (Don’t forget device firmware) When your browser ships an update, do you reverse-engineer the binary? Do you review all of the open source code you use looking for back doors?

Would it be accurate to say that you don’t do that because you’re stupid? I don’t think that’s reasonable, any more than it would be to say you should carry around a test kit for any food you are planning to buy at the supermarket.

> Technology moves faster than what any law maker can create.

This is a common claim but it’s too simplistic. Laws do get passed relatively quickly when there’s a clear need - think about how things like section 230 arrived relatively soon after the rise of the web - but in most cases it’s more a clarification of existing laws. For example, cryptocurrency wasn’t mentioned in previous laws by name but the IRS had no trouble taxing it under existing laws.

Privacy shows why the “just let people choose” approach doesn’t work: you the individual have no negotiating clout with Facebook or Google, and there are many cases like revenge porn where the problem is only visible after the decision has been made.

Laws are how societies agree to function. If you don’t like the laws, you need to get involved because there simply isn’t a way to get good results by demanding that the system accommodate people who don’t show up.