[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Oddly, I think I agree with you. What we really need, and that is the reason why it does not even enter the conversation, is standard default that we can agree upon.

By this I mean, no more fucking around with timeline. We agree that any corporation introducing a feed based on anything other than date from newest to oldest is subject to penalties and sanctions.

Will it stop 'innovation'? God I hope so. I am tired of innovation that farms up rage.

edit: From here we can start working on what algos CAN be included in customer facing crapola.

[whimsicalism]

maybe we shouldn’t use government intervention and force as the default in all of these things.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

What I can tell you for sure is that self-regulation was not very beneficial to the society as a whole ( see current cell phone impact on youth ). As to whether government regulation is a bad idea, at this point I believe it is an interesting academic objection thrown in that happens to be true often enough to an extent, but then hijacked by corporations trying to avoid actual regulation.. ie. biased at best.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think you can write off self regulation so easily. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a complete and perfect harm reduction. It usually takes time for social norms to develop, especially in the face of rapidly changing technology.

However, the alternative is very grim. It is essentially conceding that the average human is not capable of directing their actions, and they should be controlled by a higher power.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

And this is the argument that I am willing to accept. We should be able to find some happy medium. I would hate to be told that from this point on I can only use quick sort by government decree, but you have to admit that current social media/tech has gotten out of hand in terms of power they wield.

[s1artibartfast]

I would argue that the governments have also gotten out of hand in terms of the power they wield. As a result, I think that we should be careful to ensure that any new developments are clearly empowering the individual, and not just claiming to benefit them.

Im for regulatory options that put more power in the hands of users so that they can solve their problems. I haven't decided what this means for age verification and algorithms, but there are some interesting options in this thread.

[whimsicalism]

As someone from the cell phone impacted generation, I wish our elders would spend less time trying to protect us from the internet and more time building homes.

[s1artibartfast]

But who would buy them? Generation Y+ can't afford them.

I'm only half joking: The issue isn't the supply of new housing, it is the cost of building new housing. If we fix the cost issue, the new houses will follow.

[whimsicalism]

> The issue isn't the supply of new housing, it is the cost of building new housing.

I fail to see the distinction. The cost barriers (most of which are legal/zoning related) reduce quantity supplied.

I don't believe it costs 2 million in materials or labor to make a condo in California.

[s1artibartfast]

I think tackling zoning is a good example of addressing fundamental cost issues instead of supply.

Cities actually building or mandating new 2 million condos for the poor would be an example of trying to fix supply without fixing the cost issue (which happens).

In general, reduction of regulation is needed to decrease cost.

I have family that just built a home in a county without zoning or building codes, and I can assure you it was quite cheap.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

We all wish for an ideal future and, heavens know, it is a good thing that I am not an emperor for a day as a lot would change. Personally, and I mean it in a nice way, I am not obligated to build you a home. I am not even obligated to do it for my kid. Frankly, neither is the society as a whole.

You want your elders build you a home for you. No deal. Best I can do is help you along by pulling you away from your cell and saving your attention span a little.

[silverquiet]

I've always sort of felt that the whole "society is little removed from anarchy and no one owes anyone anything" is not all that far removed from "I can hit you on the head with a hammer and take your stuff if I feel like it".

[s1artibartfast]

Re: the hammer

Many people (myself included) think this is the true nature and shape of the world. There are lots of layers, institutions, and policy built on top, but what matters is ultimately who holds the hammer and what do they want.

This isn't as cynical as it might sound. Most people ultimately hold some real-world power, and have organized into systems that help them get what they want. Anger a human enough and they will withhold work, anger them more and they will resort to violence. This is the basis of all society.

[whimsicalism]

> Personally, and I mean it in a nice way, I am not obligated to build you a home. I am not even obligated to do it for my kid. Frankly, neither is the society as a whole.

I'll happily pay many multiples of what homes used to cost - just make it legal to build homes.

Let us do the things we want without having to cut through a thicket of laws intended to help and protect us. We don't want them.

Please, we've had more than enough of y'all's help.

[s1artibartfast]

I love your attitude. I hope you know that there are tons of people in older generations who also agree with removing nanny regulations.

[infecto]

Such a rule is impossible to write.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It is a lot of things ( overbearing, difficult to implement, world-changing ), but is not impossible. If you have any doubts, check OFAC rules and regulations ( and note how some seem contradictory in nature ) and see how regulated institutions respond to those.