Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 100ms 3 days ago
The same was true of food safety. Aunt Tracey might not be able to sell cupcakes from her home any more (made in the oven next to where the cat likes to sleep because of the heat), but we centralised things enough that when BSE and Salmonella outbreaks happen, which nowadays is extremely rare, we know how and why almost immediately. If the cost of ridding ourselves of animal torture, terrorism and child pornography is a few hundred fewer Mastodon instances I could most certainly live with that
3 comments

what a wild comparison, millions (billions?) of humans have died from food-borne disease, and yet we do in fact still let people very casually sell food to the public (even unpasteurized milk in the US)
I can't speak for elsewhere, but in the UK she can still sell her cupcakes, she just needs about 3 different kinds of license and one council inspection to do it. I imagine that is fairly normal across the EU
That is a weird analogy because so much of modern food borne illnesses we deal with today are because of the fact that we centralized food production so any contamination effects hundreds or more people at a time which necessitated strict safety regulations. If you ate Aunt Tracey's stuff and got sick, maybe a handful of people at most get sick, if you eat Aunt Tracey's Original Recipe Cupcake™, thousands of people could get sick.
This is a social media ban. It's not going to fix any of the issues you're talking about, and there are far greater risks and costs. I say this as someone who despises social media, too.