| ▲ | gchamonlive 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse? A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment (either regulation or rampant corporate abuse). My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions, it doesn't deserve merit" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
>This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse? I can't see how my comment is a "strawman" in any meaningful sense. >A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment That's exactly my point. Adopting a "you're either with us or against us" attitude is totally toxic, and shouldn't be accepted just because it's for a cause you happen to agree with. >My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions, it doesn't deserve merit" If you wanted an intelligent discussion on what regulation should consist of, what's the point of starting off which such an absolutist remark? What does it add compared to something like "what's the right form of regulation to address this?" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||