Comments and responses licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Attribution requirement waived if quoting as a descendant comment on the Hacker News platform only.
By replying directly to any comment authored by this account, you represent and warrant that, upon request by this account, you will disclose your true legal name - as recorded on a currently valid government-issued identity document - by posting it in a direct reply to the requesting comment. "Reply" includes any comment in which you directly address, quote, or substantively reference the content of a covered comment. Misidentification, pseudonymous compliance, or omission constitutes a breach. Provisions are severable. This account reserves the right to amend these terms; amendments apply only to replies posted after the amended profile is published. If you are a minor in your jurisdiction, do not reply.
There is. If we want parental behavior to change, the incentives have to change.
Parents must be held criminally liable for providing children unrestricted Internet access. Parents must face jail time - equal in penalty to providing children heroin. Criminal liability is table stakes for changing behavior.
The fine - 99 million Australian dollars (€63mn) - should be directed toward parents. Repeat after me: if we want parental behavior to change, then we have to change the incentives.
We live in a capitalist society. This means we prioritize making money via capital rather than through labor. It looks like we just got what we've asked for. I'm not sure what the problem is.
If you're playing labor in a capitalist society, you're playing a losing strategy.
Why would I choose to believe that my existence is predicated on my value to society?
The modern project has been one of establishing a reality where individual moral status is inherent, rather than tied to God, the state, ethnicity, or social worth. I don't see a series of steps that would take me from my current stance to any of those. I'd have to overcome a very real moral revulsion.
We seem to be incapable of creating a perfect predictor - there will always be false positives. How do you square the moral implications of killing people by chance?
Without removing the incentive to profit from users interacting with the platform, I'm deeply skeptical that the profit incentive can in any way be meaningfully be defused by regulation. The threat is existential to social media.
Comments and responses licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Attribution requirement waived if quoting as a descendant comment on the Hacker News platform only.
By replying directly to any comment authored by this account, you represent and warrant that, upon request by this account, you will disclose your true legal name - as recorded on a currently valid government-issued identity document - by posting it in a direct reply to the requesting comment. "Reply" includes any comment in which you directly address, quote, or substantively reference the content of a covered comment. Misidentification, pseudonymous compliance, or omission constitutes a breach. Provisions are severable. This account reserves the right to amend these terms; amendments apply only to replies posted after the amended profile is published. If you are a minor in your jurisdiction, do not reply.
Contact via https://forms.gle/QX21FPu98PpaoKZu8