Life is complex and beautiful and trying to regulate every possible outcome beforehand just makes it boring and depressing.

▲

torlok 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We should just let people with overwhelming amounts of money research and fund new ways to trick people's lizard brains into giving them even more money.

▲

twoodfin 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you’re going to organize your society around the theory that humans don’t actually possess free will, you’re going to produce a fair number of outcomes that a classical liberal would find abhorrent.

	▲	mrob 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's only assuming that free will requires effort to exert. They shouldn't be required to waste that effort on defending themselves from attempts to trick them into buying things they don't need.
	▲	jbxntuehineoh 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, good, okay

▲

replooda 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People aren't lizards, however. You demonstrate that by engaging in the distinctly unlizardlike behavior of employing a false dichotomy to imply the opposite.

▲

Unai 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Laws should protect what's beautiful about life. And life is less beautiful when trillion dollar companies abuse the human nature to extract value, damaging society and individuals for the benefit of the very few.

▲

ApolloFortyNine 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What it does is allow for selective enforcement, making it possible to go after any company at will.

When rules are vague enough you can pretty much always find a rule someone is 'breaking' depending on how you argue it.

It's why countries don't just have a single law that says "don't be evil".

▲

idiotsecant 9 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that's what case law is for. Modelling the zillion little details. One party claims something breaks a law another claims it doesn't, and then we decide which is true. The only alternative is an infinitely detailed law.

▲

dredmorbius 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Case law, also known as common law, is a British legal tradition. Most of the EU does not follow the common law tradition. There may be supreme courts, but the notion of binding precedent, or stare decisis as in the US legal system does not exist. Appeal and Supreme court decisions may be referenced in future cases, but don't establish precedent.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent>

The equivalent doctrine under a civil legal system (most of mainland Europe) is jurisprudence constante, in which "if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same holdings using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law" (from above Wikipedia link). See:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence_constante>

Interestingly, neither the principle of Judicial Review (in which laws may be voided by US courts) or stare decisis are grounded in either the US Constitution or specific legislation. The first emerged from Marbury v. Madison (1803), heard by the US Supreme Court (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison>), and the second is simply grounded in legal tradition, though dating to the British legal system. Both could be voided, possibly through legislation, definitely by Constitutional amendment. Or through further legal decisions by the courts themselves.

	▲	wolvoleo 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I'm really glad we don't have common law where I live. It makes the law way too complicated by having all these precedents play a role. If the law is not specific enough we just fix it. Also it breaks the trias politica in my opinion. Case in point: the way the Supreme Court plays politics in the US. It shouldn't really matter what judge you pick, their job is to apply the law. But it matters one hell of a lot in the US and they've basically become legislators.

▲

sophrosyne42 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, case law is when the interpretation of the law is ambiguous in specific cases where the law as written intends for a specific meaning.

This is different, it is intentionally ambiguous precisely so bureaucrats get to choose winners and losers instead of consumers.

▲

andybak 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But how do you stop the boring and depressing - and abusive and manipulative parts?

I'm not saying legislation is a good solution but you seem to be making a poetic plea that benefits the abusers.

▲

saidinesh5 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>I'm not saying legislation is a good solution but you seem to be making a poetic plea that benefits the abusers.

Only if you believe everyone else has no agency of their own. I think most people outgrow these things once they have something more interesting in their lives. Or once they're just bored.

Back when this thing was new, everyone was posting pictures of every food item they try, every place they've been to etc.. that seems to slowly change to now where there are a lot more passive consumers compared to a few polished producers.

If you're calling people delivering the content "abusers", what would you call people creating the content for the same machine?

▲

andybak 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't believe people have no agency.

But I do believe we overestimate our own agency. Or more importantly society is often structured on the assumption that we have more agency then we actually do.

▲

2muchcoffeeman 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

because some people suffer from mental health issues and need help and encouragement to break these behaviours.

And companies should not be allowed to predate on the vulnerable.

▲

bdangubic 9 hours ago | parent [-]

where does it stop though? I suffer from cant-stop-eating-nutella but should we shut down ferrero? it is simply not possible to protect the vulnerable in a free society. any protection only gives power into the wrong hands and will eventually get weaponized to protect “vulnerable” (e.g. our kids from learning math cause some ruling party likes their future voters dumb)

	▲	2muchcoffeeman 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Dumb argument. They don’t intentionally make Nutella addictive and then test out recipes on the public to make it even more addictive. Other people can’t stop eating ice cream or oranges or salami.

▲

randomNumber7 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would say the core problem is that we lack a goal as society. If you only care about making money stuff like this happens regardless how many regulations you do.