| ▲ | zkmon 7 hours ago |
| Makes sense. Same as "Made in XXX" label. Users have the right to know where the product was made and how synthetic the product is. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | mosura 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Skip to the end. Let the consumer verify that the product is the unmodified intention of the entity claiming to have produced it and let them decide if they trust it. Tangent: it is notable that certain variations of labelling of that sort would now be considered unacceptable by many: https://web.archive.org.au/awa/20240617043532oe_/https://blo... |
| |
| ▲ | kubelsmieci 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Let the consumer verify .. and .. > and let them decide Isn't it naive thinking ? | | |
| ▲ | mosura 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not remotely. Let people check authenticity of the source and make their own private decisions. The entire problem is fraud, and governments are hardly immune from that. |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Let the customer verify if the flour has asbestos in it, and decide if they trust it." "Let the customer verify if the car airbags were installed properly, and decide if they trust it. "Let the customer verify if the plant that produced the plastic in their grocery bags is dumping its waste products in the water nearby, and decide if they trust it." No. We have governments and regulations for a reason. It is utterly unreasonable to expect customers to verify everything themselves. We need clear, firm labeling laws for all kinds of products. There's no reason this should be different. |
|
|
| ▲ | vasco 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Every website will just add a global label somewhere in the pop-up they already have about cookies. |
|
| ▲ | RandomLensman 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Label additions done by machines vs those by humans? |
| |
| ▲ | DarkNova6 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | An obvious start would be that any such technology needs to have its own clearly visible watermark and removing it constitutes a crime. | | |
| ▲ | RandomLensman 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why and why would it need to be a crime? Again, we don't label machine additions, for example. | | |
| ▲ | DarkNova6 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You will have to tell me how "labelling machine additions" is applicable at all as an example here. Unless your argument boils down to "computer doing things does not require labelling". | | |
| ▲ | RandomLensman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is mostly my argument. I find "computer doing things" generally not a useful category and why here specifically doesn't have enough support. If there are some truly high risk gaps, then why no close them specifically? |
|
|
|
|
