Hacker News

The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.

That was my point. Intelligent people on HN can find other options, but none of those other options will either impress Meta shareholders nor will they make it into legislation.

Agreed. I'm working on the transition. I'm still a work in progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues

I think this is a fun historical example. Ships passing through Denmark needed to pay a tax of 1-2% of the value of their cargo. They self-assessed that value.

The twist that makes it interesting was that the King could choose to purchase any cargo immediately at the reported value. If a ship underreported, they might save on tax, but they risked taking a hefty loss.

I have no idea how effective this was, but it's compelling. I wonder whether great self-regulation might need clever design like that example.

The best I've seen is ESRB ratings on video games.

This is the subject of Coasian economics. Their answer is yes.

The entire age verification push in AUS was started by a advertising consulting company to distract from proposed online gambling regulation.

Protecting children is a noble goal, but it's also often used to sane-wash further erosion of privacy.

As has been discussed here and elsewhere, age verification turns out to be the complete loss of Internet anonymity due to its implementation techniques. There are proposed alternative implementations, very conveniently for some, this is not part of the discussion.

This is exactly the time when nerds like us should speak up.

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...

i agree with the sibling comment here. someone in a comment section somewhere is crying foul about everything.

People cry foul about every other thing too. It's best to ignore them.

Because the implementation is a shit show?

Literally hard to get out of beyond network effects, too. Talk about GDPR all you like but I know of at least one person whose account got reactivated after deleting it and then promptly showed up on People You May Know

This is fraud. Promising something you didn't deliver is fraud

You still haven't convinced me that is inherently bad that is warrants some sort of monetary damages. All entertainment is addictive. That's the whole point.

This is just people seeing dollar signs asking for handouts. Nothing of an real value to society. Why is it okay for FB to be sued but not say Pokemon? I think Pokemon is way more dangerous, addictive, and is basically gambling with the card packs.

Have some personal responsibility for once.

That sounds like something somebody hopped up on social media would say.

Nice fedslop but teddy k was never given any drugs.

Im glad you agree with me on the stuff about Facebook being evil. im not sure i understand why you said this was not a conspiracy immediately after describing a series of events perpetrated by facebook which could easily form the basis of a criminal conspiracy prosecution.

MKULTRA was about using drugs to alter state and produce uninhibited truthfulness.

Social media has a direct impact on dopamine and uninhibited oversharing.

The mechanism isn’t even ambiguous, which is exactly why there’s a case, about the production of a deliberately addictive substance. The chemicals and effects differ, but it’s deliberate use and production as the same exact means to an end do not.

There’s zero ambiguity here of the alignment on an end goal.

Side note: is META hiring and can you refer me?

Honestly, I'm about 10% of the way towards "Meta's social media people wrote this comment and astroturfed it to the top so that the case against Meta looks crazy."