Comment by ajkjk
16 hours ago
I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them.
Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made.
The slippery slope arguments do nothing. People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrelevant noise.
We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned and we think it's important.
I that once freedom of speech and freedom to communicate and freedom to decent are gone they are gone for good.
I dislike very much that politicians like Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have tried to shut down dissenting voices by comparing them to paedophiles or saying this is just about access to porn.
I'm really angry about this. I don't want to live in a "nanny state" and will probably end up voting for a party I otherwise dislike just get this crap repealed.
Labour, Tories and Greens don't seem to care about personal freedom. I do and I'm fed having politicians and journalists that don't listen to me.
>We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned
Huh? I must've read thousands of comments on this site over the years to the effect that any censorship of the internet would be wrong.
Yes, on this site but not in mainstream discussions.
I've lost count of the number of politicians and special interests I've heard on shows like Radio Four's Today Programme talk about online "safety" and funnily enough they never speak about mitigating the fall out from that.
1 reply →
Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.
We... are... talking about regulating and banning them. That is what is being done. Talking about regulating and banning them. Not
> Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts
Whatever this is. We would be in agreement that would be bad. The debate is over whether this is that, rather than whether that is bad. Misunderstanding that makes all the discussion pointless.
The UK is talking about regulating and banning their consumption.
The UK does not have that ability to regulate and ban their production. The US regards such attempts as illegal foreign censorship.
Ban the sale or use of personalized information for marketing or advertising purposes.
Force the companies to develop effective parental controls (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48530053 for links to how the current controls are not effective.)
Once those all decisively fail then we can perhaps talk about "welcoming of the internet police state and voicing support for removal of the free internet".
Assigning infinite weight to one factor or consideration is sort of the definition of fanaticism, yes?
The monopoly on violence is trying to solve this problem, that's a bigger problem.
> I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them.
I couldn't tell if this post was satire at first read.First it complains about not weighting tradeoffs, then it follows up with a demand that we ignore the tradeoffs as noise and just push through with the regulations.
You see the irony, right? You're stunned that people can't weigh tradeoffs, then you switch to dismissing tradeoffs as noise:
> People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrelevant noise.
Considering the second order and higher order consequences of regulations is the entire point.
You're just waving them all away with an assumption that they will be solved in the future.
Trying to shut down discussion about the consequences of government action as noise is scary. We've reached levels of moral panic that people like you are happy to close your eyes to any consequences and insist we let the government take control and do whatever they want right now, without considering the consequences.
It's terrifying that people think this way.
It's not satire.
> people like you are happy to close your eyes to any consequences and insist we let the government take control and do whatever they want right now, without considering the consequences.
Nobody said anything of the sort. That's the problem with trying to debate this: you're interpolating this stance into people who don't have it at all.
It's interesting that we suddenly can't regulate anything because of "freedom" and "speech" and it just happens to align perfectly with big tech interests.
The whole freedom and speech shit online is starting to feel like a big lie we have been sold so that big tech can just get richer.
Hey, if it's irrelevant noise then why are you crying about it?
Anyway, to make it the UK's problem even more, I will be doing what I can to eliminate the UK's traffic to as many services as possible. I have no interest in supporting the small island or it's people or their great red coat firewall.
Enjoy your wall.
> Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made.
False. The whole point of fundamental rights is that they aren’t compromised on based on outcomes.
“Torture is bad, but not being able to get information out of criminals is also bad. Some compromise must be made.” That’s just not how it works, is it?
Perhaps it may surprise you to know that's exactly how it works in some democratic countries - e.g. India and Japan - as the system does provide some leeway to the police on how they extract information from suspects. (India leans towards physical torture, while Japan to psychological torture). Moreover, Americans are often surprised to know that not answering police questions can in fact harm your defence in court in many countries, and police misconduct also does not necessarily exclude any evidence collected.
But where exactly is the line for torture? Is pre-trial or pre-charge detention torture? Solitary detention? Any forced labor at all?
> The whole point of fundamental rights is that they aren’t compromised on based on outcomes.
This is false, we generally take away fundamental rights when there's justification for doing so. e.g. the first paragraph of https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986 (and every other paragraph also; I'm sure there are UK equivalents). We enshrine fundamental rights in order to elevate them above baser considerations, but it's not like a paperclip-maximizer thing where we optimize 100% for protecting them over all other considerations. Nor should it be (for the obvious paperclip-maximizer failure modes).
Anyway, the debate here is not over "police state good" and I'm frankly disappointed in all the commenters who interpret anyone disagreeing with them as claiming that. I for example loathe the idea of a police state and I'm quite sure the people I'm replying to would find I agree with them on most issues related to that. But it is not black and white, despite everyone's attempts at portraying it as such. I would love to hear people's practical, viable, politically-tenable plans for doing something about industrial-scale addiction to social media which do not involve impinging on these freedoms at all.