As an adult, I do not want to be "protected". I can decide for myself if I like the algorithm or product/service and choose not to use it if I don't like it.
Given that statement, I'm not sure you're fully an adult.
Every single person living in modern society is "protectected":
- You're protected from people deciding which side of the street to drive on
- You're protected from a bank who tells you the money you depisited is "all belong to us"
- even a "market" can't exist without "protection"
Once every person has their own army of ML engineers and psychos at their disposal, then there is an oportunity for personal choice in anti-social media.
Or much simpler, the anti-social corps can be required to allow each user to configure their own feed algorithm. This would be a useful "protection".
The negative consequences of not having _any_ "protection" in anti-social networks are clear across society.
These are analagous to the damage done in the US by lack of gun protection. Guns are now the leading cause of childhood death in the US. Combine guns and 4chan/Discord and you get the rash of idiots shooting up the populace and then themseelves.
The problem is in modern societies the society is footing the bill for those who choose, let's say, unwisely.
Why should my mandatory social and medical insurance taxes go fix issues created by such wrong choices? Should the society not cover them? E.g. smokers with lung cancer should pay out of pocket? Or should society try to minimize wrongdoing instead?
Indeed, there are different interpretations of the social contract.
You have essentially two polar options.
First option is that social services come with strings attached that entitle the providers to control the lives of the recipients.
Second is that social services are freely given, and the recipients have not given up their autonomy. the givers can choose to stop giving, or place conditions on gifts, but they dont get direct control over the recipients.
Either are fine in theory, but the problem is with ex-post recontracting. for example, when a gift or service is freely given, and then someone demands payment later.
There are some interesting works of fiction that explore alternatives. For example, allowing adults to choose how much of their autonomy they want to abdicate for differing levels of entitlements and guarantees.
> is in modern societies the society is footing the bill
This isn't exactly true.... All societies always have footed the bill, modern or not. If you cast the person out in a middle age society then expect to get robbed by bandits on your next visit to the town next door.
Which emphasizes why you should attempt to minimize wrongdoing before it gets expensive, when you don't it turns into that story of "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly"
Every single person living in modern society is "protectected":
- You're protected from people deciding which side of the street to drive on
- You're protected from a bank who tells you the money you depisited is "all belong to us"
- even a "market" can't exist without "protection"
Once every person has their own army of ML engineers and psychos at their disposal, then there is an oportunity for personal choice in anti-social media.
Or much simpler, the anti-social corps can be required to allow each user to configure their own feed algorithm. This would be a useful "protection".
The negative consequences of not having _any_ "protection" in anti-social networks are clear across society.
These are analagous to the damage done in the US by lack of gun protection. Guns are now the leading cause of childhood death in the US. Combine guns and 4chan/Discord and you get the rash of idiots shooting up the populace and then themseelves.