5 ms·

> Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards for the online products we use every day. Aussie here

> Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards for the online products we use every day. Aussie here. Great to see this. I don't think this goes far enough: I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely. Not an option to see a different feed. Illegal. It's manipulative, hurts people, hurts children: make it illegal.

achenet 11d ago
Please don't start randomly prohibiting things because you dis-approve of those things. We have, at this point, over a 100 years of evidence showing that prohibition of psychoactive substances (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc) doesn't actually do much to reduce consumption but do create an immense amount of suffering not just for anyone participating in the trade or consumption of those substances, but also anyone remotely connected to them - cf the immense violence perpetrated by drug cartels in the Americas, mostly because people living in the US seem to be in denial about their appetite for drugs. So please, stop banning things you don't like, tax and regulate them instead. Use the tax proceeds to fund "social media rehab" clinics if you'd like. Draconian "I don't like it, it gets banned" government wasn't a good idea in 15th century Spain, it's still not a good idea now. Let your fellow citizens make bad decisions, just ensure that the government is poised to profit from them.
- suddenlybananas 11d ago
  Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?
  - achenet 11d ago
    things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks). Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.
    - stubish 11d ago
      In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.
    - vintagedave 11d ago
      My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.
      - achenet 10d ago
        Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
- jl6 11d ago
  "tax and regulate" isn't immune from second-order effects either. Set the tax high enough and you'll get smuggling gangs with all the same tendencies.
  - achenet 11d ago
    no, it's not a perfect system, but better. Look at the alcohol market in the U.S. Or even the tightly controlled Systembolaget [0] in Sweden, compared to the modern markets for cannabis and cocaine. Tax and regulate lowers violence and increases tax revenue, outright prohibition/making it illegal increases violence and lowers tax revenue. I do believe "sin prohibition" policies, for not just drugs but gambling, prostitution, etc, are one example of "low-hanging fruit", where there is a noticeably better option that is usually not implemented. Really, for all trades usually controlled by violent criminals (so everything the Mafia/Yakuza/crime groups traditionally specialize in), I believe that the citizens of a given state will be happier if the trade is controlled by the state and not given over to criminals, which is functionally what "make it illegal" does. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
    - jl6 11d ago
      I don't think it's at all obvious that a regulation-based approach could produce better outcomes than a prohibition-based approach. No doubt prohibition causes much violence and misery, but prohibition was a response to other great harms, most famously the condition of opium addicts. Rather than rehash the arguments for and against, I would ask a meta-question: if the matter really were so clear, then why, over the last ~200 years, did every country introduce a prohibition-based stance, and why has no country switched to tax-and-regulate?
      - achenet 10d ago
        > if the matter really were so clear, then why, over the last ~200 years, did every country introduce a prohibition-based stance, and why has no country switched to tax-and-regulate? First off, you do have countries switching over to tax-and-regulate, Canada, for example, some U.S. states, countries in Europe (Germany, Netherlands). But to answer the question of countries going to prohibition-based instead of tax-and-regulate - off the top of my head 1) US-led world order + US deciding to ban a bunch of drugs for political reasons (I hear, from multiple sources that discriminating against Mexican immigrants was one reason cannabis was outlawed, Reagan and his whole 'War on Drugs' schtick...) 2) tradition - have you noticed that, also for the last ~200 years, basically all world leaders, from French presidents to the Emperor of Japan, will dress in the style of the English monarch George IV (and, more precisely, in the the style George IV copied from Beau Brummell)? We ban drugs because that's what we're used to doing. Our leaders dress in suits because that's what we expect them to do. 3) naive ignorance - much as how, for hundreds if not thousands of years, "sacrifice a bull" was considered the state of the art in ensuring that there would be water for the crops, people growing up with no additional knowledge will often arrive at "ban it" as a logical way to handle a social ill, even if, as those who have suffered the negative consequences [0][1] know, "ban it" generally just makes the problem worse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Laredo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Laredo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war Source [1] notes "Analysts estimate wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 to $49.4 billion annually". Not the illicit part. The market is there, even if outlawed. Dozens of billion of dollars per year, and if you tax-and-regulate, all of a sudden you've got billions in tax revenue to help you "respond to social harms, such as the condition of opium addicts".
- alehlopeh 11d ago
  As if this guy had the power to ban anything, you’re begging him not to?
- brainwad 11d ago
  Australia is and always has been a nanny state. It's cultural.
- jmcqk6 10d ago
  Why does "there's lots of evidence that shows this is harmful" get reduced to "You don't like it?" I'm not taking a stance here. I'm just noticing the rhetorical move you made. There is lots of evidence that some of those things are harmful. Cocaine, gambling, and alcohol have all destroyed many lives. I'm not in favor of banning those things, or banning social media for that matter. It is intellectually dishonest to reduce the arguments for those things to "oh you just don't like them."
slopinthebag 11d ago
i hope they ban hacker news over there soon too
prawn 10d ago
Also Australian, and I think there's something worth doing in this space, but I don't know how effective this Albo plan will be. Maybe there's an angle whereby an algorithmic sort (other than chronological, alphabetical, etc) loses liability protection somehow so the media companies are discouraged. On Instagram, I can opt-out of "suggested content" but it reverts every 30 days or so. I would vastly prefer the default be that I have to opt-in every 30 days...

achenet 11d ago

Please don't start randomly prohibiting things because you dis-approve of those things. We have, at this point, over a 100 years of evidence showing that prohibition of psychoactive substances (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, etc) doesn't actually do much to reduce consumption but do create an immense amount of suffering not just for anyone participating in the trade or consumption of those substances, but also anyone remotely connected to them - cf the immense violence perpetrated by drug cartels in the Americas, mostly because people living in the US seem to be in denial about their appetite for drugs. So please, stop banning things you don't like, tax and regulate them instead. Use the tax proceeds to fund "social media rehab" clinics if you'd like. Draconian "I don't like it, it gets banned" government wasn't a good idea in 15th century Spain, it's still not a good idea now. Let your fellow citizens make bad decisions, just ensure that the government is poised to profit from them.

suddenlybananas 11d ago
Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?
- achenet 11d ago
  things that directly harm other taxpayers - murder, physical violence, theft, false slander/reputational attacks... prohibiting things that harm the individual should not be the role of government, IMO. Government, in the liberal/Enlightenment tradition, is there as a protector of your 'rights' to life, liberty, and property. While it has a duty to protect you from things which could harm you (eg junk food/sugary drinks), it also has a duty to let you do what you choose to do, even if it's 'bad' for you (eg eat junk food and drink sugary drinks). Hence the compromise - you can smoke cigarettes and drink Coca-Cola, but the makers of cigarettes and soft drinks have to warn you beforehand, and the transaction may be more taxed than things like basic foods.
  - stubish 11d ago
    In countries with public health care and social security, harm to the individual is direct harm to other taxpayers. You must wear seat belts or wear bike helmets because the rest of us don't want to pay your rehabilitation bills.
  - vintagedave 11d ago
    My point (I'm the one you originally replied to) is that the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media.
    - achenet 10d ago
      Thanks for your reply ^^ > the effects of negative social media are on par with these things. Political violence, violence against minorities and specific genders, and worse. I hate to break it to you, "humans hurting each other over tribal distinctions" is not new. Look at literally all of world history. If you want a very well-documented example, look at the treatment of the descendants of former slaves in the southern United States 1865-1965. People don't need social media to start lynching each other. > "Even" hurting the way children grow up and think should not be controversial to ban for children. Part of society's function is to protect kids as they grow. Yes. Tax and regulate doesn't imply "unrestricted access". Children are already 'protected by society' from alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and a host of other things, I'm totally okay with Instagram/Reddit/et al. being "18+" as well. But there's a difference between "18+" and "illegal". > I don't think likening it to Coca Cola, or even alcohol, is the same at all. And I did not ask to ban social media. I asked to ban harmful expressions of social media. That's true, you specifically said "I'd like to see addictive algorithms, content, and doomscrolling banned entirely" but I feel like that definition basically bans all popular social media: 'addictive algorithms, content and doomscrolling' would describe basically the business model of all major ad-supported social media sites (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok). Basically the entire 'web 2.0' business model is "have users create content, push the stuff that keeps people staring at the site the longest as much as possible so we can sell more ads". And I don't believe that a blanket ban on Facebook/YouTube/et al. would be a net improvement.
jl6 11d ago
"tax and regulate" isn't immune from second-order effects either. Set the tax high enough and you'll get smuggling gangs with all the same tendencies.
- achenet 11d ago
  no, it's not a perfect system, but better. Look at the alcohol market in the U.S. Or even the tightly controlled Systembolaget [0] in Sweden, compared to the modern markets for cannabis and cocaine. Tax and regulate lowers violence and increases tax revenue, outright prohibition/making it illegal increases violence and lowers tax revenue. I do believe "sin prohibition" policies, for not just drugs but gambling, prostitution, etc, are one example of "low-hanging fruit", where there is a noticeably better option that is usually not implemented. Really, for all trades usually controlled by violent criminals (so everything the Mafia/Yakuza/crime groups traditionally specialize in), I believe that the citizens of a given state will be happier if the trade is controlled by the state and not given over to criminals, which is functionally what "make it illegal" does. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
  - jl6 11d ago
    I don't think it's at all obvious that a regulation-based approach could produce better outcomes than a prohibition-based approach. No doubt prohibition causes much violence and misery, but prohibition was a response to other great harms, most famously the condition of opium addicts. Rather than rehash the arguments for and against, I would ask a meta-question: if the matter really were so clear, then why, over the last ~200 years, did every country introduce a prohibition-based stance, and why has no country switched to tax-and-regulate?
    - achenet 10d ago
      > if the matter really were so clear, then why, over the last ~200 years, did every country introduce a prohibition-based stance, and why has no country switched to tax-and-regulate? First off, you do have countries switching over to tax-and-regulate, Canada, for example, some U.S. states, countries in Europe (Germany, Netherlands). But to answer the question of countries going to prohibition-based instead of tax-and-regulate - off the top of my head 1) US-led world order + US deciding to ban a bunch of drugs for political reasons (I hear, from multiple sources that discriminating against Mexican immigrants was one reason cannabis was outlawed, Reagan and his whole 'War on Drugs' schtick...) 2) tradition - have you noticed that, also for the last ~200 years, basically all world leaders, from French presidents to the Emperor of Japan, will dress in the style of the English monarch George IV (and, more precisely, in the the style George IV copied from Beau Brummell)? We ban drugs because that's what we're used to doing. Our leaders dress in suits because that's what we expect them to do. 3) naive ignorance - much as how, for hundreds if not thousands of years, "sacrifice a bull" was considered the state of the art in ensuring that there would be water for the crops, people growing up with no additional knowledge will often arrive at "ban it" as a logical way to handle a social ill, even if, as those who have suffered the negative consequences [0][1] know, "ban it" generally just makes the problem worse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Laredo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Laredo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_drug_war Source [1] notes "Analysts estimate wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 to $49.4 billion annually". Not the illicit part. The market is there, even if outlawed. Dozens of billion of dollars per year, and if you tax-and-regulate, all of a sudden you've got billions in tax revenue to help you "respond to social harms, such as the condition of opium addicts".
alehlopeh 11d ago
As if this guy had the power to ban anything, you’re begging him not to?
brainwad 11d ago
Australia is and always has been a nanny state. It's cultural.
jmcqk6 10d ago
Why does "there's lots of evidence that shows this is harmful" get reduced to "You don't like it?" I'm not taking a stance here. I'm just noticing the rhetorical move you made. There is lots of evidence that some of those things are harmful. Cocaine, gambling, and alcohol have all destroyed many lives. I'm not in favor of banning those things, or banning social media for that matter. It is intellectually dishonest to reduce the arguments for those things to "oh you just don't like them."

slopinthebag 11d ago

i hope they ban hacker news over there soon too

prawn 10d ago

Also Australian, and I think there's something worth doing in this space, but I don't know how effective this Albo plan will be. Maybe there's an angle whereby an algorithmic sort (other than chronological, alphabetical, etc) loses liability protection somehow so the media companies are discouraged. On Instagram, I can opt-out of "suggested content" but it reverts every 30 days or so. I would vastly prefer the default be that I have to opt-in every 30 days...