[SiempreViernes]

I don't see the problem with banning or otherwise regulating certain representations if that is a useful tool against the production you are trying to stop.

This sort of "everything is allowed" arguments just seems like a way to avoid having to think carefully about what restrictions are reasonable, and what constitutes responsible use of information. Simply lazy irresponsibility.

[GyYZTfWBfQw]

Except it's not "everything is allowed", and the "ban and regulate everything" mentality seems to be more harmful, useless, waste of time and money in reality.

Regarding responsibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16933814

[psyc]

I have commented before about A/B testing the law to achieve statistical outcomes, and I absolutely do see a problem with it. It tosses principles and liberties out the window. Legislating things that are correlated with the thing you want to avoid is a utilitarian bridge too far for me.

[TeMPOraL]

So you'll be fine with DUI? After all, it's not the alcohol we're trying to avoid - it's the accidents, which are correlated with alcohol (for obvious reasons).

Truth is, often correlations are the only things we can go after to fight the things we don't want.

[psyc]

I think that reaching for legislation as the tool to minmax any desirable societal metric is a bad doctrine. That does not mean I am against every possible instance of it. DUI is very immediate. It's like putting one round in the chamber and pointing it at a public space. But, for example, I am opposed to restricting speech and free association as a less expensive proxy for stopping various things.