Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Feed, My Way

pm.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: My Feed, My Way

#111

Post by achenet »

jl6 wrote: post #106
achenet wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

"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.

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

Re: My Feed, My Way

#112

Post by xtiansimon »

I imagine we’re talking about air and water pollution. So my question is, How is the social feed going to be tested for these standards? I can’t imagine it.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#113

Post by epihelix »

LoganDark wrote: post #90
Vishal_Max wrote: post #46

The damage is already done for most people who already use it. Whenever I go to a restaurant and see friends, families, and couples together, I feel sad that instead of talking to each other, they’re all watching TikToks or reels. On a bus or train, barely one or two people are actually doing something other than watching something online. At least, hopefully, this rule helps future generations. People’s brains are s…

Do people really ignore family and do completely separate things on their devices right next to each other?? Usually when I'm next to someone, I'm using my device to look up things related to the conversation, just like how I'd use a search engine during an internet discussion. I can't imagine just sitting around watching shorts right next to someone during a family gathering.

Not in my family or extended family. But you can see examples of this all the time when eating out. So many young couples sit at a table at a restaurant, get out their phones and scroll away, occasionally showing their partner something they enjoyed. It's rare to see them talk more than a few words on what is presumably a date night.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#114

Post by martin- »

xnorswap wrote: post #92
LoganDark wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really ignore family and do completely separate things on their devices right next to each other?? Usually when I'm next to someone, I'm using my device to look up things related to the conversation, just like how I'd use a search engine during an internet discussion. I can't imagine just sitting around watching shorts right next to someone during a family gathering.

There isn't any need to "look things up related to the conversation", and if that is seen as acceptable then that itself is a sign of how things have changed, and how addicted we all are to information.

Instead of spending 45 minuter discussing back and forth whether Tim Burton is still alive, we can take five seconds to look it up, and then move on to more interesting topics.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#115

Post by jareklupinski »

f6v wrote: post #69
Vishal_Max wrote: post #46

The damage is already done for most people who already use it. Whenever I go to a restaurant and see friends, families, and couples together, I feel sad that instead of talking to each other, they’re all watching TikToks or reels. On a bus or train, barely one or two people are actually doing something other than watching something online. At least, hopefully, this rule helps future generations. People’s brains are s…

> On a bus or train, barely one or two people are actually doing something other than watching something online. I mean, what else should I be doing? Self-analyzing and staring in the window?

> Self-analyzing and staring in the window

you say this like it's a negative thing :( have you tried it?

Re: My Feed, My Way

#116

Post by alehlopeh »

achenet wrote: post #96
vintagedave wrote: post #93

> 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.

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 re…

As if this guy had the power to ban anything, you’re begging him not to?

Re: My Feed, My Way

#117

Post by stavros »

dbspin wrote: post #105
gitowiec wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone measured that if a user is teenager boy, it will take Tik Tok 9 minutest to serve misogynistic content...

The thing that doesn't get written about is that precisely the same situation occurs for women. Decentering men is equivalent to MGTOW. The torrent of misandrist content on social media utterly dwarfs the amount of 'red pill' / manosphere or similar content. It's mainstream in a way outright misogynistic content hasn't been for decades. Worse still, it's almost impossible to have this discussion without the immediate…

This has always been my issue with these causes that claim to promote equality. If your way of promoting equality and inclusion excludes a whole gender, you're doing something wrong.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#118

Post by stubish »

achenet wrote: post #107
suddenlybananas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything you think would be appropriate to prohibit?

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 dri…

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.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#119

Post by MarceliusK »

The first rule reduces platform power. The second potentially requires platforms to build even larger classification and moderation systems. I'm very much in favor of the first, but I don't think they belong under the same conceptual umbrella.

Re: My Feed, My Way

#120

Post by jackb4040 »

MarceliusK wrote: post #119

The first rule reduces platform power. The second potentially requires platforms to build even larger classification and moderation systems. I'm very much in favor of the first, but I don't think they belong under the same conceptual umbrella.

I read the article but I don't understand the two "rules" you're referring to? Can you state them?
Post reply on HN