| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago |
| This idea that regulation fails to destroy industries is farcical. Most examples of “failed regulation” like American prohibition were runaway successes as public policy. Whether it is good or desirable is a different question. The idea that someone is going to make an engaging experience on a “decentralized” network is honestly a bit silly to me. The market potential of this business is low. Decentralized networks with much larger incentives have failed to capture critical mass. There will be side effects, but social media has been so ridiculously corrosive to the welfare of teenagers that I can’t imagine a ban would be worse. |
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Most examples of “failed regulation” like American prohibition were runaway successes as public policy. You pick one of the worst examples? Prohibition drove a black market for spirits . the 21st amendment repealed it because the government missed out on hundreds of thousands in taxes. The reason to make the law and repeal it were both awful. The lessons learned were all wrong. It's just awful all around (and I speak as someone that doesn't really drink much). |
| |
| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, this is absolutely one post hoc interpretation of it. The black market for spirits absolutely pales in comparison to public health and legal data, which conclusively show that second order effects of drinking like liver disease, public intoxication, and domestic violence plummeted. This prohibition era retcon is a way to justify the fact that people like to drink and there were many people who stood to make money on re-legalization. Which is why I said the question of it being a good thing is different. I encourage you to look at the data, as someone who also enjoys to drink. Government bans are surprisingly effective in most developed countries. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "success" can be viewed in different lenses. In your lens of "did it make America healthier", sure. I wouldn't be surprised. My lens is "did America actually learn anything valuable from this period?". And all I see is "We The Government are fine poisoning our citizens as long as we profit from it". A lesson that passed on to cigarettes, then hard drugs, then fast food (which persists to this day), and now with social media. Then The Government wonders why no one trusts them to do the right thing. In that lens, I'd say prohibition and its downstream effects on how to regulate in general was absolutely awful and damning. | | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s a fair interpretation! I meant in terms of the stated goals of the Prohibitionist movement. I imagine they would agree with both of us (and be very angry about it) | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > poisoning our citizens *allowing our citizens to make their own choices about what they consume | | |
| ▲ | komali2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that what happened with cigarettes? Remember how pervasive cigarette ads used to be? Human behavior is variable and can be influenced, even against our best interest. At what point do we acknowledge advertising as a form of psychological attack that causes people to do harmful things they wouldn't otherwise do? The government's role in this imo shouldn't be to allow corporations to try to convince people to hurt themselves and then to sell them things to hurt themselves with, but then turn around and restrict people's rights to slow down the self harm. Rather I believe the government should seek to annihilate corporations that try to harm the population. Is not the implicit relationship between corporations, people, and government, such that corporations want to be allowed to exploit a population for profit in return for some nominal good, and the government allows that only so long as the good outweighs the harm? Why not? | |
| ▲ | eesmith 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | May I interest you in my ReVitaleZ water? Every bottle is energized with radium! I've got a marketing campaign ready that will sweep the nation and convince millions to ReVitaleZ! | | |
| ▲ | nickpp 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, nothing like a little radiation fear mongering to convince the public they need government approval for every single drop of drink and byte of food we put into our bodies. It's for our own good, after all! Meanwhile, years after the actual Radithor radium water [1] scandal, the very same government was merrily blowing up atomic bombs in open air, in the desert [2]. And even today there are crazy people around the world happily consuming radioactive gas in specially designed spas [3]. They should be locked up for their own good, the government always knows better! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor [2] https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/artbound/downwind-upshot-knot... [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9073685/ | | |
| ▲ | eesmith 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Nothing like a snakeoil-monger bemoaning pesky government regulations with misguided exaggerating of the dangers of Big Government. I'm shocked the same government which supports global warming and mass species extinction, and which threatens to bomb "shithole countries" "back to the Stone age", has a less than perfect attitude about nuclear weapons. Shocked I say! Next I suppose you'll say that this same government hasn't clamped down hard on coal power plants which, in addition to their CO2 emissions, generates ash which destroys waterways, kills people, and is full of radioactive waste? I'm so glad our governments always know better than that! It would be a shame if food and drug laws were in place mostly because even rich people and politicians can't ensure their food and drugs are safe. It's time to take my protein powder supplements. I'm glad the government inspects every manufacturer so I don't have to worry about doing my own lead tests each time I buy some. Thank you Orrin Hatch for your diligence! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The idea that someone is going to make an engaging experience on a “decentralized” network is honestly a bit silly to me. The market potential of this business is low. Decentralized networks with much larger incentives have failed to capture critical mass. When decentralized networks win, they often win so big that they become invisible. AOL is dead, the web isn't. Email, the global telephone network, the internet itself, these are all decentralized networks. The hardest part of doing this for social media is actually discovery. It's easier to show people an "engaging" feed when your algorithm has access to the full firehose to select from. But that doesn't mean doing it in a decentralized way is impossible, and if you pass a law that drives people away from centralized services, the incentive to do it goes up. |
|
| ▲ | api 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The “engaging experience” is the entire problem. The fact that it’s harder to do addiction engineering on a decentralized network is a feature. |
|
| ▲ | mx7zysuj4xew 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Aaannd then the mask came off, proving you were a moralistic authoritarian. I suppose you support cartels destabilizing entire nation-states with billions of criminal funds too |
