[BigJono]

Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.

[ajkjk]

We... are... talking about regulating and banning them. That is what is being done. Talking about regulating and banning them. Not

> Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts

Whatever this is. We would be in agreement that would be bad. The debate is over whether this is that, rather than whether that is bad. Misunderstanding that makes all the discussion pointless.

[eesmith]

The UK is talking about regulating and banning their consumption.

The UK does not have that ability to regulate and ban their production. The US regards such attempts as illegal foreign censorship.

Ban the sale or use of personalized information for marketing or advertising purposes.

Force the companies to develop effective parental controls (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48530053 for links to how the current controls are not effective.)

Once those all decisively fail then we can perhaps talk about "welcoming of the internet police state and voicing support for removal of the free internet".