U.S. is investigating Meta for role in drug sales(wsj.com)
wsj.com
U.S. is investigating Meta for role in drug sales
https://www.wsj.com/tech/u-s-is-investigating-meta-for-role-in-drug-sales-574944cb
199 comments
https://archive.ph/ntjdU
I see tons of drug dealers going live and posting reels of them counting their money on Facebook, Tiktok, and Instagram. They have 100’s or 1000’s of viewers enthusiastically asking questions on how to “get a bag”.
I’ve reported them each time and each and every time the same response: “No violation found.”
If anyone is working for the DOJ and wants evidence of their willful ignorance and collaboration with drug dealers, contact me and I can provide screenshots and usernames of the accounts and reports I’ve made.
I’ve reported them each time and each and every time the same response: “No violation found.”
If anyone is working for the DOJ and wants evidence of their willful ignorance and collaboration with drug dealers, contact me and I can provide screenshots and usernames of the accounts and reports I’ve made.
The problem is that short of actual drugs appearing there is no way to verify anything illegitimate has transpired. This is just like Twitter's "this is a parody account" debacle.
And for the most part the people making the videos know this. The platforms don't work if they have to police everything. Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere.
What do you reasonably expect?
And for the most part the people making the videos know this. The platforms don't work if they have to police everything. Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere.
What do you reasonably expect?
> What do you reasonably expect?
the argument i hear quite a lot is: No real world business would be allowed to continue operation if it repeatedly did little or nothing to address—or worse allowed the patrons to flaunt—illegal activities on premises. If any business had solid and precise evidence that a specific person was committing crimes and they did nothing, it would likely lose its business license.
there are obviously good arguments to be made for and against this, but its not something that many want to interrogate.
the argument i hear quite a lot is: No real world business would be allowed to continue operation if it repeatedly did little or nothing to address—or worse allowed the patrons to flaunt—illegal activities on premises. If any business had solid and precise evidence that a specific person was committing crimes and they did nothing, it would likely lose its business license.
there are obviously good arguments to be made for and against this, but its not something that many want to interrogate.
Why do we have to give up?
Why is OK with "Company is too large to police, nothing to see, move on"?
Maybe the platforms shouldn't work, in that case. And where is elsewhere, exactly? They are welcome to register their own domain and web site if they want to.
Why is it OK for Meta to make money on not policing their platform? We as a society are expected to pick up the tab.
Why is OK with "Company is too large to police, nothing to see, move on"?
Maybe the platforms shouldn't work, in that case. And where is elsewhere, exactly? They are welcome to register their own domain and web site if they want to.
Why is it OK for Meta to make money on not policing their platform? We as a society are expected to pick up the tab.
Because we would rather not live in a permission society dystopia where one can be called to answer "Who gave you the right to change society?".
Can you expand on that argument, because I dont' get it.
If I open a large mall in the physical world where drug vendors roam free and I give them cover to hide, because I like the money they pay on ads, that's OK too? When someone complains, I just say "I have the right to change society, who are you to tell me I can't".
If I open a large mall in the physical world where drug vendors roam free and I give them cover to hide, because I like the money they pay on ads, that's OK too? When someone complains, I just say "I have the right to change society, who are you to tell me I can't".
> The platforms don't work if they have to police everything. Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere.
I'm unequivocally against any sort of drug prohibition, but this argument is pretty silly.
You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing.
If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work.
I'm unequivocally against any sort of drug prohibition, but this argument is pretty silly.
You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing.
If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work.
> You know what other business model doesn't work if we enforce laws mandating anti-drug morality? Drug dealing.
Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced.
It just gets more expensive, risky, and often has to pick up either organized crime backing (e.g. gangs and liquor in prohibition, or gangs and cocaine/crack/h during the height of the war on drugs) or government backing (not in an IranContra sense, rather lobbying to make your drug legal, so long as the government gets a cut - e.g. liquor or marijuana).
Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced.
It just gets more expensive, risky, and often has to pick up either organized crime backing (e.g. gangs and liquor in prohibition, or gangs and cocaine/crack/h during the height of the war on drugs) or government backing (not in an IranContra sense, rather lobbying to make your drug legal, so long as the government gets a cut - e.g. liquor or marijuana).
> Pedantically, the drug dealing business model definitely still definitely works, even if anti drug laws are enforced.
Fair enough, you've got me there.
I guess what I meant was that drug dealing business model doesn't work legally.
Fair enough, you've got me there.
I guess what I meant was that drug dealing business model doesn't work legally.
>Proper moderation results in an increase in false positives which paints an overzealous image and will draw the ire of users while driving them elsewhere.
Isn't a false positive by definition improper moderation, just like a false negative?
Isn't a false positive by definition improper moderation, just like a false negative?
Is selling pens and paper unethical? Because drug dealers can use those too. Same for food. I guess we should make grocery stores screen every person to make sure they're not using the food for anything illegal.
Sure pen and papers won’t be unethical as much as keyboards they are using to type today.
However if they use a shop as a platform to start selling drugs, that shop owner will be held liable by law, just like facebook.
However if they use a shop as a platform to start selling drugs, that shop owner will be held liable by law, just like facebook.
What about phones? I'm sure they use phones in general, should we also ban phones or listen in on everybody by default to avoid it?
The phones allow them to make trades much more effectively.
In addition, they probably use their hands, feet, voice, maybe these should be disabled for people since birth.
The phones allow them to make trades much more effectively.
In addition, they probably use their hands, feet, voice, maybe these should be disabled for people since birth.
You're comparing apples to oranges. We don't expect phone manufacturers or phone companies to prevent people from using phones to send death threats, but Facebook regularly removes death threats sent via Facebook.
The argument being argued here is that it's not viable in practice for Facebook to police every single post, not that it shouldn't do it in principle. Your argument seems to be that Facebook shouldn't police messages at all, like phone companies don't monitor conversations. That's a completely different position that even Facebook wouldn't agree on.
The argument being argued here is that it's not viable in practice for Facebook to police every single post, not that it shouldn't do it in principle. Your argument seems to be that Facebook shouldn't police messages at all, like phone companies don't monitor conversations. That's a completely different position that even Facebook wouldn't agree on.
>The argument being argued here is that it's not viable in practice for Facebook to police every single post, not that it shouldn't do it in principle. Your argument seems to be that Facebook shouldn't police messages at all
I'm pretty unconvinced that they should in principle be able to both engage in content moderation and retain safe harbor.
I'm pretty unconvinced that they should in principle be able to both engage in content moderation and retain safe harbor.
Cellular providers do try to block spam and certain kinds of fraudulent/impersonated content.
A shopping mall isn't liable (in most cases) for the products or services sold by the individual stores yet it can choose to not allow certain businesses (tobacco, gambling, 18+ stores).
Have you seen a completely unmoderated social media site? It's either ultra niche or riddled with spam, fraud, and other low-quality content.
It's really simplistic to only bring up social media when the larger topic is "should private control of common platforms, markets, and network effect relationships be allowed"? The real estate and many critical B2B industries are FAR more insular and controlled by arbitrary groups.
Should McDonalds Inc. be liable for franchises selling expired food and/or should they not be able to control a franchise at all? Franchise contracts are way more controlling than any social media ToS yet people pay to join them.
A shopping mall isn't liable (in most cases) for the products or services sold by the individual stores yet it can choose to not allow certain businesses (tobacco, gambling, 18+ stores).
Have you seen a completely unmoderated social media site? It's either ultra niche or riddled with spam, fraud, and other low-quality content.
It's really simplistic to only bring up social media when the larger topic is "should private control of common platforms, markets, and network effect relationships be allowed"? The real estate and many critical B2B industries are FAR more insular and controlled by arbitrary groups.
Should McDonalds Inc. be liable for franchises selling expired food and/or should they not be able to control a franchise at all? Franchise contracts are way more controlling than any social media ToS yet people pay to join them.
There was another argument made, which I'm referring to.
> "If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work."
There's plenty of tools and business in real world where preventing the use of those tools for certain unethical acts is unfeasibly complex, impossible, costly or difficult.
> "If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work."
There's plenty of tools and business in real world where preventing the use of those tools for certain unethical acts is unfeasibly complex, impossible, costly or difficult.
Sure.
Facebook isn't one of those, though.
Facebook isn't one of those, though.
You're ignoring the context in that comment. It was made in reply to "The platforms don't work if they have to police everything". That's what's being discussed; whether it's OK to give a pass to Facebook on some objectionable content because they can't possibly police everything.
In other words, it's understood that Facebook will police as much as they can (as they're already doing); one side is arguing that if they can't police everything they shouldn't exist, the other side is arguing that it's good enough that they police whatever is practical.
That's why your comparison with phone companies doesn't work: Facebook is already expected to monitor some content, the question is to what degree they should be held accountable.
In other words, it's understood that Facebook will police as much as they can (as they're already doing); one side is arguing that if they can't police everything they shouldn't exist, the other side is arguing that it's good enough that they police whatever is practical.
That's why your comparison with phone companies doesn't work: Facebook is already expected to monitor some content, the question is to what degree they should be held accountable.
I don't understand what difference it makes whether they are already monitoring certain part of something or not? The effect is still the same. You could also argue that some phones or comm lines provide a way to monitor or get alerts for certain cases such as terrorism etc, but not all lower level crimes.
And governments monitor people in the public, yet they are unable to prevent all crimes of happening. Should governments then not exist at all or the society in general? Should people not exist?
And governments monitor people in the public, yet they are unable to prevent all crimes of happening. Should governments then not exist at all or the society in general? Should people not exist?
If you really don't understand that the argument
"If phone companies can't remove all death threats, they shouldn't exist (even though nobody expects them to try remove any death threats)"
is fundamentally different from
"If Facebook can't remove all death threats, they shouldn't exist (given that it's their policy to remove death threats)"
then I don't know what to tell you.
"If phone companies can't remove all death threats, they shouldn't exist (even though nobody expects them to try remove any death threats)"
is fundamentally different from
"If Facebook can't remove all death threats, they shouldn't exist (given that it's their policy to remove death threats)"
then I don't know what to tell you.
There are diminishing returns in the World to block any societally negative behavior. I think that is the key thing here in the argument. Police monitors the city, but they don't stop all bad wrongdoing. There's always underage kids drinking, there's drugs changing hands, there's all sorts of illegal things going on. Some are easier to prevent, some are worse and have worse impacts on the society, it's a spectrum of illegal, immoral or otherwise bad things going on everywhere at once. Just because there's something on spectrum somewhere doesn't mean the whole thing should be shut off or should not exist. Just because police doesn't get all the 17 year olds drinking a pint or two doesn't mean the police or the World should not exist.
[deleted]
This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument. There are numerous obvious differences:
1. We can enforce the law on Facebook in ways we can't with completely agnostic, low-tech tools like pen and paper.
2. "Drug dealers can use those too" is very different from "Drug dealers are commonly using those too, to deal drugs". Drug dealers surely use pen and paper sometimes. But how often are they using them? And are they using them to advertise and sell drugs, or just using them? (Note this also addresses your food analogy).
3. Facebook inherently collects massive amounts of evidence that pen, paper, and food don't.
1. We can enforce the law on Facebook in ways we can't with completely agnostic, low-tech tools like pen and paper.
2. "Drug dealers can use those too" is very different from "Drug dealers are commonly using those too, to deal drugs". Drug dealers surely use pen and paper sometimes. But how often are they using them? And are they using them to advertise and sell drugs, or just using them? (Note this also addresses your food analogy).
3. Facebook inherently collects massive amounts of evidence that pen, paper, and food don't.
>This is a disingenuous and overly-glib argument
It's not that, it's a reductio ad absurdum, a legitimate debate technique.
It's not that, it's a reductio ad absurdum, a legitimate debate technique.
> (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction
Banning pens and paper isn't a consequence of forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing.
Or in the contradiction sense, forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing does not lead to an absurdity of everyone being forced to ban pens and paper.
This isn't reductio ad absurdum.
Banning pens and paper isn't a consequence of forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing.
Or in the contradiction sense, forcing Facebook to not allow drug dealing does not lead to an absurdity of everyone being forced to ban pens and paper.
This isn't reductio ad absurdum.
> If your business model doesn't work without doing unethical things, your business model should not work.
Modern capitalism doesn't seem to give two shits about that
Modern capitalism doesn't seem to give two shits about that
Having a conscience isn't profitable, and that profit is the only thing that capitalism optimizes for.
Sometimes being ethical is profitable, but not always.
More fundamentally, sometimes providing any value at all is profitable, but not always.
Sometimes being ethical is profitable, but not always.
More fundamentally, sometimes providing any value at all is profitable, but not always.
> Proper moderation
I would point to oldschool forums (and HN!), where the communities were just large enough to moderate themselves and stop nasty off topic junk like that from appearing.
One problem is modern social media has (mostly) yanked this self-moderation power from users. And, as you said, they are too big and too cheap to hire enough mods on payroll to replace them.
Another, that I have, is that they make money from the drug dealer posts! If Facebook has to leave it up, OK, but they sure as heck shouldn't display ads or collect metrics. That should be a far more zealous check.
I would point to oldschool forums (and HN!), where the communities were just large enough to moderate themselves and stop nasty off topic junk like that from appearing.
One problem is modern social media has (mostly) yanked this self-moderation power from users. And, as you said, they are too big and too cheap to hire enough mods on payroll to replace them.
Another, that I have, is that they make money from the drug dealer posts! If Facebook has to leave it up, OK, but they sure as heck shouldn't display ads or collect metrics. That should be a far more zealous check.
Yeah I really think basically all the moderation problems go away (from my very particular perspective of what the problems are and why they are problems) if you at least give users the option of fully controlling what they see (i.e only posts from users they have specifically followed etc.). But that option results in lower "engagement" and time-on-site, so social media companies will probably never go back to providing it.
[deleted]
Why?
I assume your intentions are positive, but you aren't helping anyone--you're harming people. Prisons in the U.S. are not rehabilitative: prisons are actively more harmful than unregulated drug use. They do absolutely nothing prevent drug use. However, they DO cause increases in violence including both violent crime and violence perpetrated by law enforcement. They also result in more single-parent children.
If you want to reduce the problems of drug addiction, the BEST thing you can do is donate to lobbying for legalization. We certainly need more research and funding for rehabilitation, but these things won't help if we don't put into action what we already know: prohibition doesn't work.
I assume your intentions are positive, but you aren't helping anyone--you're harming people. Prisons in the U.S. are not rehabilitative: prisons are actively more harmful than unregulated drug use. They do absolutely nothing prevent drug use. However, they DO cause increases in violence including both violent crime and violence perpetrated by law enforcement. They also result in more single-parent children.
If you want to reduce the problems of drug addiction, the BEST thing you can do is donate to lobbying for legalization. We certainly need more research and funding for rehabilitation, but these things won't help if we don't put into action what we already know: prohibition doesn't work.
The legalization lobby is going to have to really get their shit together if we're going to arrive at a sensible and humane drug policy in this country. I'm generally in favor of legalization, but the latest approaches we've seen in the states where full decriminalization has happened have had some seriously awful effects - videos of open air drug markets in Philly and San Francisco showcase a level of human misery that almost makes prison look humane.
To me, it seems obvious that there's a middle ground between the stupidity of the "drug war" and the suffering factories we're allowing to grow in some of our cities. There's got to be a way to thread the needle and not have legalization imply mass lawlessness in certain parts of our cities. But none of the places that have tried legalization on a big scale have successfully threaded that needle as far as I can tell, and I think the effect of that is going to entail a lot more skepticism from the general population when further legalization initiatives come to a vote.
To me, it seems obvious that there's a middle ground between the stupidity of the "drug war" and the suffering factories we're allowing to grow in some of our cities. There's got to be a way to thread the needle and not have legalization imply mass lawlessness in certain parts of our cities. But none of the places that have tried legalization on a big scale have successfully threaded that needle as far as I can tell, and I think the effect of that is going to entail a lot more skepticism from the general population when further legalization initiatives come to a vote.
See also states like Maine where legalization has led to a huge increase in illegal farms run by gangs and cartels.
Could you link to information on this? I am searching but maybe missing the right keywords.
https://www.themainewire.com/2023/11/triad-weed-illegal-chin...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/12/oregon-marij...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/12/oregon-marij...
Okay, I'm seeing these illegal farms exist, but where exactly is the evidence for a causal link between marijuana legalization and these illegal farms?
I'm actually seeing some evidence that there's no connection between legalization and the illegal farms at all.
For example, the first article says that most of the weed grown on illegal farms in Maine isn't being sold in Maine, it's being sold in Canada. I'm just not seeing how legalization in Maine would result in more marijuana being grown illegally and sold in Canada.
The second article says, "A big part of the problem is rooted in the legalization of industrial hemp, which looks and smells like marijuana but won’t get you high." I.e. the article you posted directly disagrees with your assertion that legalization of marijuana is the cause.
I'm actually seeing some evidence that there's no connection between legalization and the illegal farms at all.
For example, the first article says that most of the weed grown on illegal farms in Maine isn't being sold in Maine, it's being sold in Canada. I'm just not seeing how legalization in Maine would result in more marijuana being grown illegally and sold in Canada.
The second article says, "A big part of the problem is rooted in the legalization of industrial hemp, which looks and smells like marijuana but won’t get you high." I.e. the article you posted directly disagrees with your assertion that legalization of marijuana is the cause.
> The second article says, "A big part of the problem is rooted in the legalization of industrial hemp, which looks and smells like marijuana but won’t get you high."
The next sentence says farm-scale hemp production was legalized in 2010. When the price of hemp collapsed in 2018, which was after weed had been legalized, hemp farms started being used as cover for illegal weed farms, because legalization had created such a huge market for weed.
> For example, the first article says that most of the weed grown on illegal farms in Maine isn't being sold in Maine, it's being sold in Canada. I'm just not seeing how legalization in Maine would result in more marijuana being grown illegally and sold in Canada.
That was the opinion of a single anonymous weed grower. These farms didn't exist prior to Maine legalizing sale of recreational weed in 2020, and the more lax laws about possessing weed mean it's harder to get a warrant to search these residential grow houses.
The next sentence says farm-scale hemp production was legalized in 2010. When the price of hemp collapsed in 2018, which was after weed had been legalized, hemp farms started being used as cover for illegal weed farms, because legalization had created such a huge market for weed.
> For example, the first article says that most of the weed grown on illegal farms in Maine isn't being sold in Maine, it's being sold in Canada. I'm just not seeing how legalization in Maine would result in more marijuana being grown illegally and sold in Canada.
That was the opinion of a single anonymous weed grower. These farms didn't exist prior to Maine legalizing sale of recreational weed in 2020, and the more lax laws about possessing weed mean it's harder to get a warrant to search these residential grow houses.
> When the price of hemp collapsed in 2018, which was after weed had been legalized, hemp farms started being used as cover for illegal weed farms, because legalization had created such a huge market for weed.
To be clear, you are saying that, not the article. I'm asking for evidence for your opinion.
> That was the opinion of a single anonymous weed grower.
Well, sure, I didn't say the evidence was strong either way, but it remains true that all the evidence you've presented contradicts your opinion that there's a causal relationship between legalization and illegal cartel farms.
> These farms didn't exist prior to Maine legalizing sale of recreational weed in 2020, and the more lax laws about possessing weed mean it's harder to get a warrant to search these residential grow houses.
The first claim is correlation, not causation.
Any citation for the latter claim? In the absence of evidence, one might equally argue that not prosecuting now-legal operations frees up resources to go after these larger illegal operations.
To be clear, I'm not arguing there isn't a connection; I don't know whether there is or not. But so far I'm hearing your claim that there is a connection with no evidence.
To be clear, you are saying that, not the article. I'm asking for evidence for your opinion.
> That was the opinion of a single anonymous weed grower.
Well, sure, I didn't say the evidence was strong either way, but it remains true that all the evidence you've presented contradicts your opinion that there's a causal relationship between legalization and illegal cartel farms.
> These farms didn't exist prior to Maine legalizing sale of recreational weed in 2020, and the more lax laws about possessing weed mean it's harder to get a warrant to search these residential grow houses.
The first claim is correlation, not causation.
Any citation for the latter claim? In the absence of evidence, one might equally argue that not prosecuting now-legal operations frees up resources to go after these larger illegal operations.
To be clear, I'm not arguing there isn't a connection; I don't know whether there is or not. But so far I'm hearing your claim that there is a connection with no evidence.
[deleted]
Honest question: has opioid drug use significantly proliferated because of open air drug markets in SF and Philly, or is it just surfacing a market that already existed? And what about the health outcomes of drug users? Have they improved or gotten worse?
That’s a good question, I think most people just want street enforcement on open selling/use, not jailing over small possession.
It seems our only options are either extremes bans vs mass open drugs areas, because cities/courts treat anyone poor enough to be selling/using on the street as a specially protected class…even when such behaviour predictably explodes in scale at the detriment of local communities.
It seems our only options are either extremes bans vs mass open drugs areas, because cities/courts treat anyone poor enough to be selling/using on the street as a specially protected class…even when such behaviour predictably explodes in scale at the detriment of local communities.
Those aren't our only options. There are hundreds of large cities in developed countries and very few of them have anything like the open air drug encampments you see in the core downtown areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle.
It's a bizarre regional affliction that somehow comes with willful blindness to how odd and atypical it actually is.
It's a bizarre regional affliction that somehow comes with willful blindness to how odd and atypical it actually is.
Have you considered that those are the cities (or in Portland's case after passing a law, state) not enforcing it?
This isn't some random phenomenon. Warm weather is only a part of it. DC, Philly, and NYC are all seeing large amounts of it and the only major change is basic street enforcement and judicial consequences.
All 4 of your examples are notorious for not enforcing it at the local level and Seattle decided to blame simple drug possession again after it got out of control, but without heart by the city we'll see the same outcomes. It's more than what's written in the laws.
This isn't some random phenomenon. Warm weather is only a part of it. DC, Philly, and NYC are all seeing large amounts of it and the only major change is basic street enforcement and judicial consequences.
All 4 of your examples are notorious for not enforcing it at the local level and Seattle decided to blame simple drug possession again after it got out of control, but without heart by the city we'll see the same outcomes. It's more than what's written in the laws.
Not sure this argument is as powerful as you think it is.
Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas?
Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas?
I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious.
The pretty obvious difference is that routing shit into a bathroom makes a real, negative difference in the suffering caused by shit.
Routing drug dealing into open air drug markets makes a real, positive difference, because you can police public markets to prevent violence in a way you can't police private areas, and you can provide services such as clean needles and rehab outreaches where they are most likely to reach people who need them. Such markets tend to arise in places where drug use was already rampant--i.e. they aren't creating new suffering.
The only similarity your analogy is addressing is the visibility of the problems. In your analogy, you're making the problem more visible by removing the solution, which obviously has negative effects that don't apply to drug legalization, because drug legalization is removing a big part of the problem rather than removing the solution.
The pretty obvious difference is that routing shit into a bathroom makes a real, negative difference in the suffering caused by shit.
Routing drug dealing into open air drug markets makes a real, positive difference, because you can police public markets to prevent violence in a way you can't police private areas, and you can provide services such as clean needles and rehab outreaches where they are most likely to reach people who need them. Such markets tend to arise in places where drug use was already rampant--i.e. they aren't creating new suffering.
The only similarity your analogy is addressing is the visibility of the problems. In your analogy, you're making the problem more visible by removing the solution, which obviously has negative effects that don't apply to drug legalization, because drug legalization is removing a big part of the problem rather than removing the solution.
> I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious.
Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
> Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy.
I've made at least half a dozen arguments in this thread and not a single argument I've made in this argument is by analogy.
In fact, the very argument you are making currently isn't by analogy.
> That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
That is an extraordinarily poor heuristic.
If you have enough information to make a rule for a specific instance, why not just make a rule to apply to that specific situation? Why even bother trying to apply a generalized rule?
I mean, you can say literally anything with analogies. Here, I'll offer my first argument by analogy:
Drug prohibition is like letting churches handle child abuse: it allows harm to children to continue by hiding the harm.
Why do you want to keep harming children?
/s
I've made at least half a dozen arguments in this thread and not a single argument I've made in this argument is by analogy.
In fact, the very argument you are making currently isn't by analogy.
> That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
That is an extraordinarily poor heuristic.
If you have enough information to make a rule for a specific instance, why not just make a rule to apply to that specific situation? Why even bother trying to apply a generalized rule?
I mean, you can say literally anything with analogies. Here, I'll offer my first argument by analogy:
Drug prohibition is like letting churches handle child abuse: it allows harm to children to continue by hiding the harm.
Why do you want to keep harming children?
/s
A generalized rule by definition is an analogy.
For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin? Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with? Is it more like a coffee shop, or how we handle cocaine? If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl? Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
And so on. It's analogies all the way down.
For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin? Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with? Is it more like a coffee shop, or how we handle cocaine? If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl? Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
And so on. It's analogies all the way down.
> A generalized rule by definition is an analogy.
> For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
> That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
> If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
Okay, that's mostly true, and would be relevant if we were trying a case in court.
But we aren't trying a case in court, we're disagreeing about the nature of reality. When I say "arguments from analogy are fallacious" I mean "analogies don't prove anything about the nature of reality".
> For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin?
You aren't confused about which of these drugs I'm talking about, and I'm not going to entertain a conversation where you pretend you are.
> Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with?
I wouldn't compare my policy solution with an analogy, I would say which drugs I'm talking about.
> If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl?
No, but not because of analogies, because they are two different things that exist in reality.
> Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
No analogies apply, ever, to determining the nature of reality.
> For example a rule that says do not walk on the lawn might govern a specific section of ground that has a mix of blades of grass, a pebble, one bottle cap, and some bare dirt, is analogous to "lawn" as a concept. Were it to change, at some point, it would be sufficiently devoid of grass, or the other things that make up the concept of "lawn" that it would, in fact, more analogous to something else.
> That's how everything works. Are you familiar with our legal system and the concept of precedents? Basically a precedent is an analogy, and the common law is a massive collection of analogies that have been extensively discussed over time.
> If you ever end up in litigation, you'll notice that basically the whole thing involves trying to figure out which analogy is more applicable to the specific set of facts in question. This is usually called the "theory of the case" and the side that more convincingly matches its favored analogy tends to prevail.
Okay, that's mostly true, and would be relevant if we were trying a case in court.
But we aren't trying a case in court, we're disagreeing about the nature of reality. When I say "arguments from analogy are fallacious" I mean "analogies don't prove anything about the nature of reality".
> For example, we're talking about "drug prohibition" but that's not actually specific at all. Are you talking about caffeine or heroin?
You aren't confused about which of these drugs I'm talking about, and I'm not going to entertain a conversation where you pretend you are.
> Both are drugs, but which analogy would you compare your policy solution for consumption of heroin with?
I wouldn't compare my policy solution with an analogy, I would say which drugs I'm talking about.
> If you believe in legalizing opium, do you by definition believe in legalizing Fentanyl?
No, but not because of analogies, because they are two different things that exist in reality.
> Or are the two sufficiently different that a different analogy applies?
No analogies apply, ever, to determining the nature of reality.
> No analogies apply, ever, to determining the nature of reality.
Maybe not in your head. But as soon as you introduce language and shared meaning they do. You don’t even know if the color I call blue appears to me physically the same as it does to you. We can agree that it corresponds to a specific wavelength but we just have to guess if we’re both experiencing it in the same way.
But I digress. That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
Maybe not in your head. But as soon as you introduce language and shared meaning they do. You don’t even know if the color I call blue appears to me physically the same as it does to you. We can agree that it corresponds to a specific wavelength but we just have to guess if we’re both experiencing it in the same way.
But I digress. That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
> Maybe not in your head. But as soon as you introduce language and shared meaning they do. You don’t even know if the color I call blue appears to me physically the same as it does to you. We can agree that it corresponds to a specific wavelength but we just have to guess if we’re both experiencing it in the same way.
You're posting random unrelated pop-sci at this point.
> That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
"Agreed-upon normative judgments" and "what should be" are not the same thing.
> And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
Well, the way my arguments which don't rely on analogy exist is that I typed them into the text area and pressed "reply".
You're literally trying to argue that something can't happen, which is happening right in front of you.
You're posting random unrelated pop-sci at this point.
> That doesn’t matter anyways because we aren’t talking about the nature of reality in this thread, we are talking about agreed upon normative judgments. Not just what is, but what should be.
"Agreed-upon normative judgments" and "what should be" are not the same thing.
> And that always relies on analogy. How could it not?
Well, the way my arguments which don't rely on analogy exist is that I typed them into the text area and pressed "reply".
You're literally trying to argue that something can't happen, which is happening right in front of you.
Not making any particular argument.
However, I don’t find this particularly convincing:
> Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas?
In this hypothetical shituation (I’m very sorry - I couldn’t resist), it would be very useful to answer that research question as it would serve to reveal more about both the problem and the solution.
However, I don’t find this particularly convincing:
> Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas?
In this hypothetical shituation (I’m very sorry - I couldn’t resist), it would be very useful to answer that research question as it would serve to reveal more about both the problem and the solution.
Yeah I don’t think so.
The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision.
I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision.
I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
> The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision.
That would be an arguable point, but you certainly didn't make that with your shit analogy. If you'd care to provide any evidence for that point whatsoever, I'd be happy to address that evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence for that point to even argue against.
The shit analogy isn't evidence because the problems of putting shit in the streets aren't cause by its visibility, they're caused (mostly) by bacteria.
> I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
Again with the argument from analogy being fallacious.
You likely won't see open air drug markets on the way to the park with your kids unless you already lived in a neighborhood where your children were already going to be exposed to drug use. These open air drug markets aren't opening in the Hamptons, they're opening in areas where the drug crisis was already pervasive.
That would be an arguable point, but you certainly didn't make that with your shit analogy. If you'd care to provide any evidence for that point whatsoever, I'd be happy to address that evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence for that point to even argue against.
The shit analogy isn't evidence because the problems of putting shit in the streets aren't cause by its visibility, they're caused (mostly) by bacteria.
> I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
Again with the argument from analogy being fallacious.
You likely won't see open air drug markets on the way to the park with your kids unless you already lived in a neighborhood where your children were already going to be exposed to drug use. These open air drug markets aren't opening in the Hamptons, they're opening in areas where the drug crisis was already pervasive.
Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A?
The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.
It’s a sort of obvious mainstream view that everyone most likely shares outside of this sort of bizzare too-online culture that has developed.
My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.
The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.
It’s a sort of obvious mainstream view that everyone most likely shares outside of this sort of bizzare too-online culture that has developed.
My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.
The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
> Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A?
> The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.
Anywhere drug addiction is pervasive is full of human misery, unsanitary, and violent conditions.
"Not tolerating" isn't a solution.
The concrete solution you're actually proposing is prohibition, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but makes the problem worse. It makes it harder to provide sanitation solutions such as needle exchanges, and it makes it harder to provide solutions to violence such as security presence.
> My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.
And no one disagrees with that.
The problem is, prohibition just means that people trying to live normal lives and raise children now live in a neighborhood with more violence and more unsanitary conditions that is less visible and harder to avoid. Your "solution" is not solving the sanitation or violence problems in any way, it's making both worse.
If anything, concentrating drug sales into specific areas makes the problems more avoidable for parents, because they know exactly where the problems are and can avoid those areas.
And, if you're concerned about children, surely you'd support programs to help families with children move away from violent and unsanitary areas. I'd certainly support that. That seems like it would actually solve the problem, unlike anything you've proposed.
> The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
It's tiring to continuously explain to you the differences between the analogies you keep proposing and the discussion at hand. Analogies still aren't a valid argument. Please make an effort to talk about the actual situation we're talking about, instead of bringing in various unrelated situations.
The difference in this case is that removing porn from billboards doesn't make the problems of porn worse, while making drugs illegal does make the problems of drugs worse.
> The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society.
Anywhere drug addiction is pervasive is full of human misery, unsanitary, and violent conditions.
"Not tolerating" isn't a solution.
The concrete solution you're actually proposing is prohibition, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but makes the problem worse. It makes it harder to provide sanitation solutions such as needle exchanges, and it makes it harder to provide solutions to violence such as security presence.
> My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad.
And no one disagrees with that.
The problem is, prohibition just means that people trying to live normal lives and raise children now live in a neighborhood with more violence and more unsanitary conditions that is less visible and harder to avoid. Your "solution" is not solving the sanitation or violence problems in any way, it's making both worse.
If anything, concentrating drug sales into specific areas makes the problems more avoidable for parents, because they know exactly where the problems are and can avoid those areas.
And, if you're concerned about children, surely you'd support programs to help families with children move away from violent and unsanitary areas. I'd certainly support that. That seems like it would actually solve the problem, unlike anything you've proposed.
> The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
It's tiring to continuously explain to you the differences between the analogies you keep proposing and the discussion at hand. Analogies still aren't a valid argument. Please make an effort to talk about the actual situation we're talking about, instead of bringing in various unrelated situations.
The difference in this case is that removing porn from billboards doesn't make the problems of porn worse, while making drugs illegal does make the problems of drugs worse.
I mean it's possible to have large scale programs that offer treatment and support for those who need it and decriminalization or a diversion focused approach to drug laws, while also making it illegal to shoot up in parks or defecate in public, and to enforce those laws.
It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.
It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.
> I mean it's possible to have large scale programs that offer treatment and support for those who need it and decriminalization or a diversion focused approach to drug laws, while also making it illegal to shoot up in parks or defecate in public, and to enforce those laws.
> It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.
You've certainly destroyed that straw man thoroughly! Now that we're agreed on the obvious that shooting up in parks and defecating in public should not be allowed, would you care to explain why you disagree with anything I've actually said?
I'm sure you can find some crazy person who believes that defecating in public should be legal, but there does not exist any significant movement of people who think that. If you think there is, that indicates a problem with your understanding of the situation.
> It's really not all that complicated. The only places I see people breathlessly explaining that it's impossible are a few specific cities on the west coast of the United States.
You've certainly destroyed that straw man thoroughly! Now that we're agreed on the obvious that shooting up in parks and defecating in public should not be allowed, would you care to explain why you disagree with anything I've actually said?
I'm sure you can find some crazy person who believes that defecating in public should be legal, but there does not exist any significant movement of people who think that. If you think there is, that indicates a problem with your understanding of the situation.
> [V]ideos of open air drug markets in Philly and San Francisco showcase a level of human misery that almost makes prison look humane.
Sorry, what argument are you making exactly?
There's zero evidence I know of that any of the suffering visible in open-air drug markets wasn't already happening pre-decriminalization. The suffering likely existed before, i.e., decriminalization isn't causing the suffering, it's just allowing it to become more visible.
The root causes of the suffering you're seeing are almost entirely economic.
Sorry, what argument are you making exactly?
There's zero evidence I know of that any of the suffering visible in open-air drug markets wasn't already happening pre-decriminalization. The suffering likely existed before, i.e., decriminalization isn't causing the suffering, it's just allowing it to become more visible.
The root causes of the suffering you're seeing are almost entirely economic.
Yeah, sorry - I'm a bit all over the place, so let me be clear. I'm not arguing that decriminalization has caused the problem per se. My main point is that the proliferation of video of these open air drug markets is a PR disaster for efforts towards legalization because the perception is that this is what you get when you decriminalize.
Part of my point also is that lack of enforcement of other laws worsens the issue - both for the users who hang out on these places and also for the perception of the voters who people in favor of saner drug policy are trying to sway.
Part of my point also is that lack of enforcement of other laws worsens the issue - both for the users who hang out on these places and also for the perception of the voters who people in favor of saner drug policy are trying to sway.
Yeah, that's a really hard problem to solve, though. Some problems don't have pretty or hideable solutions, and that doesn't mean we should just not solve them.
Homelessness is probably even more difficult in this regard: homeless men are dirty, smelly, and scary, and that turns a lot of people off from wanting to help them, which is why almost every program for the homeless I know of is geared toward making them less visible, even if doing so actively harms the homeless.
Homelessness is probably even more difficult in this regard: homeless men are dirty, smelly, and scary, and that turns a lot of people off from wanting to help them, which is why almost every program for the homeless I know of is geared toward making them less visible, even if doing so actively harms the homeless.
Overdose deaths have been increasing significantly, particularly due to fentanyl. There were 20k deaths in 2000, and more than 100k in 2021.
The root causes for homelessness and drug abuse are in large part due to trauma and bad childhood. Soft White Underbelly has interviewed thousands of people from Skid Row, and invariably they suffered major abuses and instability as kids. I guess you could go full historical materialist and say that was caused by economics too, though historically most people were far more impoverished as subsistence farmers, yet still managed to maintain dignity and stability through culture and community.
It should also be noted that other countries with fewer homeless also have higher rates of involuntary hospitalization, e.g. Japan. De-institutionalization of the mentally ill has directly led to the rise in homelessness. Portugal is routinely cited as a success story of decriminalization, yet they force treatment upon addicts as an alternative to jail. Progressives use all carrot and no stick, which is not going to work with people who have become mentally ill addicts.
The root causes for homelessness and drug abuse are in large part due to trauma and bad childhood. Soft White Underbelly has interviewed thousands of people from Skid Row, and invariably they suffered major abuses and instability as kids. I guess you could go full historical materialist and say that was caused by economics too, though historically most people were far more impoverished as subsistence farmers, yet still managed to maintain dignity and stability through culture and community.
It should also be noted that other countries with fewer homeless also have higher rates of involuntary hospitalization, e.g. Japan. De-institutionalization of the mentally ill has directly led to the rise in homelessness. Portugal is routinely cited as a success story of decriminalization, yet they force treatment upon addicts as an alternative to jail. Progressives use all carrot and no stick, which is not going to work with people who have become mentally ill addicts.
> Overdose deaths have been increasing significantly, particularly due to fentanyl. There were 20k deaths in 2000, and more than 100k in 2021.
And? How is this an argument against legalization of drugs? This certainly isn't attributable to legalization.
> The root causes for homelessness and drug abuse are in large part due to trauma and bad childhood. Soft White Underbelly has interviewed thousands of people from Skid Row, and invariably they suffered major abuses and instability as kids.
Sure, and when you figure out a way to go back in time and undo those major abuses and instability, that will be a fixable problem.
The fixable causes are all economic. People don't have access to mental health care to recover from the abuses and stability because we prioritize rich people not having to pay taxes over providing healthcare. People don't have homes because we prioritize rich people not having to pay taxes over providing homes.
> I guess you could go full historical materialist and say that was caused by economics too, though historically most people were far more impoverished as subsistence farmers, yet still managed to maintain dignity and stability through culture and community.
Instead of talking about vague unprovables like dignity and stability, I'd suggest you talk in evidence. Your argument here is even more disingenuous because you chose vague unprovables over concrete issues which we were already talking about, such as drug use and homelessness (which you yourself brought up).
If we look at drug use: many fewer drugs were available and with the exception of alcohol, the popular drugs were less harmful. The plight of alcoholics was (and is) worse in subsistence farming societies because less help was (and is) available. So this is closer to an argument for my point than for yours.
If we look at homelessness: a lot of housing was provided by stronger family units, communities, and other social structures (i.e. a serf was provided housing by the lord who owned the land--literally where the word "landlord" comes from--but hopefully I don't have to argue against bringing back serfdom as a solution to homelessness). In the modern day, we arrest black and poor men, tearing apart families and communities, to the benefit of for-profit LEO and prison industries.
> De-institutionalization of the mentally ill has directly led to the rise in homelessness.
This is largely a categorization error. You're basically considering mental institutions to be homes.
1. Mental institutions aren't homes. They're at least shelter, but that's not all a home is.
2. The solution to homelessness is homes. The mental health problem is intertwined, but critically, mentally ill people in homes are just mentally ill, they aren't homeless.
3. Mental healthcare is ineffective when someone is experiencing the ongoing trauma of homelessness, so mental healthcare of any kind is not the solution to homelessness. Mental healthcare is also pretty ineffective when all of someone's freedoms are taken away, so forcible institutionalization isn't necessarily a great way to treat mental health issues either (though admittedly it is necessary in some cases). Forcible institutionalization is a tool of last resort for solving mental health issues, and it's not a solution to homelessness at all.
It sounds an awful lot like you aren't interested in helping homeless people, you're just interested in hiding them in mental institutions. This means you don't have to see the problem, but it's really just shifting a homelessness problem into an over-institutionalization problem. It's arguable whether it's better to be homeless or unnecessarily institutionalized, but if these are the options you're considering, you're not trying to help the people most affected by this problem.
It's possible to give people homes and mental healthcare without forcing them into institutions.
> Portugal is routinely cited as a success story of decriminalization, yet they force treatment upon addicts as an alternative to jail.
I'm against prison because it's not rehabilitative in any way. I'm not against forcing addicts into rehabs, although I would like forcible inpatient rehabs to be a tool of last resort, and I would also like it to be more humane than most forcible mental health facilities are in the U.S.
> Progressives use all carrot and no stick, which is not going to work with people who have become mentally ill addicts.
I'm not "progressives" and progressives aren't any one thing, so this generalization you're making is pretty much a straw man argument.
And it appears you view forcible mental health institutionalization as a "stick", which is genuinely horrific. Do you really intend to make the argument that the solution to mental health issues is to punish the mentally ill?
And? How is this an argument against legalization of drugs? This certainly isn't attributable to legalization.
> The root causes for homelessness and drug abuse are in large part due to trauma and bad childhood. Soft White Underbelly has interviewed thousands of people from Skid Row, and invariably they suffered major abuses and instability as kids.
Sure, and when you figure out a way to go back in time and undo those major abuses and instability, that will be a fixable problem.
The fixable causes are all economic. People don't have access to mental health care to recover from the abuses and stability because we prioritize rich people not having to pay taxes over providing healthcare. People don't have homes because we prioritize rich people not having to pay taxes over providing homes.
> I guess you could go full historical materialist and say that was caused by economics too, though historically most people were far more impoverished as subsistence farmers, yet still managed to maintain dignity and stability through culture and community.
Instead of talking about vague unprovables like dignity and stability, I'd suggest you talk in evidence. Your argument here is even more disingenuous because you chose vague unprovables over concrete issues which we were already talking about, such as drug use and homelessness (which you yourself brought up).
If we look at drug use: many fewer drugs were available and with the exception of alcohol, the popular drugs were less harmful. The plight of alcoholics was (and is) worse in subsistence farming societies because less help was (and is) available. So this is closer to an argument for my point than for yours.
If we look at homelessness: a lot of housing was provided by stronger family units, communities, and other social structures (i.e. a serf was provided housing by the lord who owned the land--literally where the word "landlord" comes from--but hopefully I don't have to argue against bringing back serfdom as a solution to homelessness). In the modern day, we arrest black and poor men, tearing apart families and communities, to the benefit of for-profit LEO and prison industries.
> De-institutionalization of the mentally ill has directly led to the rise in homelessness.
This is largely a categorization error. You're basically considering mental institutions to be homes.
1. Mental institutions aren't homes. They're at least shelter, but that's not all a home is.
2. The solution to homelessness is homes. The mental health problem is intertwined, but critically, mentally ill people in homes are just mentally ill, they aren't homeless.
3. Mental healthcare is ineffective when someone is experiencing the ongoing trauma of homelessness, so mental healthcare of any kind is not the solution to homelessness. Mental healthcare is also pretty ineffective when all of someone's freedoms are taken away, so forcible institutionalization isn't necessarily a great way to treat mental health issues either (though admittedly it is necessary in some cases). Forcible institutionalization is a tool of last resort for solving mental health issues, and it's not a solution to homelessness at all.
It sounds an awful lot like you aren't interested in helping homeless people, you're just interested in hiding them in mental institutions. This means you don't have to see the problem, but it's really just shifting a homelessness problem into an over-institutionalization problem. It's arguable whether it's better to be homeless or unnecessarily institutionalized, but if these are the options you're considering, you're not trying to help the people most affected by this problem.
It's possible to give people homes and mental healthcare without forcing them into institutions.
> Portugal is routinely cited as a success story of decriminalization, yet they force treatment upon addicts as an alternative to jail.
I'm against prison because it's not rehabilitative in any way. I'm not against forcing addicts into rehabs, although I would like forcible inpatient rehabs to be a tool of last resort, and I would also like it to be more humane than most forcible mental health facilities are in the U.S.
> Progressives use all carrot and no stick, which is not going to work with people who have become mentally ill addicts.
I'm not "progressives" and progressives aren't any one thing, so this generalization you're making is pretty much a straw man argument.
And it appears you view forcible mental health institutionalization as a "stick", which is genuinely horrific. Do you really intend to make the argument that the solution to mental health issues is to punish the mentally ill?
Many countries with stricter laws don't have anywhere near the problem the US is facing
Same with countries that have more relaxed laws. I think the problem lies deeper than legality and enforcement.
All countries with complete legalization don't have anywhere near the problem the U.S. is facing.
Glib responses about nuanced situations actively detract from the conversation. Stop doing that.
Glib responses about nuanced situations actively detract from the conversation. Stop doing that.
People with Karen-like behavior are rarely doing it for altruistic reasons and rather out of some sense of anger and spite
That’s kind of an asshole move to be honest. If you had your way and your reporting actually reached the ears of law enforcement, I guarantee you would have blood on your hands eventually.
American drug enforcement is an extremely blunt instrument and is very good at generated collateral damage.
American drug enforcement is an extremely blunt instrument and is very good at generated collateral damage.
So are the cartels that produce much of the drug supply.
The facebook community reporting creature is trash. I've never had a successful report go through.
Someone selling "account recovery services"? That's totally allowed by FB!
Someone selling "account recovery services"? That's totally allowed by FB!
Meanwhile, those who caused the opiod epidemic, are currently walking free, but still undecided: The Supreme Court may toss out Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/11/30/the-supre... from The Economist
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/11/30/the-supre... from The Economist
The articles that 404Media did on the extremely obvious ads on Meta's platforms were pretty telling on Meta's lack of giving a shit. I'm one of those rare people that don't use any of Meta's products, so I was actually surprised at just how blatant the ads were. I'm actually shocked that someone is doing anything that remotely leans towards giving a shit.
https://www.404media.co/lets-see-what-drugs-instagram-is-adv...
https://www.404media.co/instagram-throttles-404-media-invest...
https://www.404media.co/lets-see-what-drugs-instagram-is-adv...
https://www.404media.co/instagram-throttles-404-media-invest...
This is crazy because I kept getting ads like this for MDMA (after checking the next IG story), I finally got tired of it and reported one, they actually manually reviewed it and DENIED the report, so I re-reported and they denied it again. Definitely enabling sales.
This is a common scenario with them if you report anything. This shows how taking care of the legality of the content is an expense they just save on as much as they can. It’s ironic that they actually give you an explanation that they didn’t check the content because they don’t have enough capacity to review every report. And then they report the earnings they do.
Similar story here. There was a crypto scam ad including "Libra" and AI produced Mark Zuckerberg video where he was pitching how he would distribute some of his wealth etc.
Reported it, it got reviewed and it got denied. They kept the ad.
Money is hell of a drug, too.
It’s remarkable what can be done with interpreting and generating content, but things like advertising quality, Twitter bots and obvious scams are basically CAPTCHAs to their systems.
This is interesting because I have experienced something similar on Twitter. If you mention anything about drugs or psychedelics you quickly get bots replying telling you to message them or some other user to get drugs. I get annoyed at all auto-reply keyword bots but one might think that ones advertising illegal services might be stopped, and yet they persist.
Twitter was way worse with bots before Elon's takeover, but it's still terrible.
Another example (bots presumably paid for by hedge funds): any post about GameStop on Twitter will trigger AMC and other ticker bots to spam the comments under that post/Tweet. Essentially disabling comments for any GameStop related Tweet.
Another example (bots presumably paid for by hedge funds): any post about GameStop on Twitter will trigger AMC and other ticker bots to spam the comments under that post/Tweet. Essentially disabling comments for any GameStop related Tweet.
> Twitter was way worse with bots before Elon's takeover,
This has not been my experience. I locked my account a month or so ago but up to then I was reliably getting two sexbot follows a day (and there's a pile of follow requests in my notifications), and there's an awful lot of accounts out there that want to tell me about something of theirs in their bio.
(And it's kind of interesting that they haven't done anything about those, but pulled out all the stops to protect the identity of that Texas fascist).
This has not been my experience. I locked my account a month or so ago but up to then I was reliably getting two sexbot follows a day (and there's a pile of follow requests in my notifications), and there's an awful lot of accounts out there that want to tell me about something of theirs in their bio.
(And it's kind of interesting that they haven't done anything about those, but pulled out all the stops to protect the identity of that Texas fascist).
I still have to check twitter occasionally, and I noticed that I get followed by a new bot at least once a day.
It’s interesting to see them as a form of DDoS, like a distributed denial of engagement.
That's been done WAYYYY back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1abot
Negative news/Tweets about presidential candidate get popular? Use spam bots to trigger Twitter algorithms to penalize popular negative Tweet.
Positive news/Tweets? No spambots.
That was like 10+ years ago.
Negative news/Tweets about presidential candidate get popular? Use spam bots to trigger Twitter algorithms to penalize popular negative Tweet.
Positive news/Tweets? No spambots.
That was like 10+ years ago.
> Twitter was way worse with bots before Elon's takeover
My experience has been that the problem has so obviously gotten worse it is surprising to me that anyone would say otherwise. I used to get bot interactions maybe once a month and now I get them multiple times per day. Every post I make gets random bot likes, I get bot follows constantly, and multiple times per week I get the big at tweet which is just a tweet full of mentions which is so obviously a bot I can’t believe that behavior doesn’t get fixed.
For me bots got way, way worse.
My experience has been that the problem has so obviously gotten worse it is surprising to me that anyone would say otherwise. I used to get bot interactions maybe once a month and now I get them multiple times per day. Every post I make gets random bot likes, I get bot follows constantly, and multiple times per week I get the big at tweet which is just a tweet full of mentions which is so obviously a bot I can’t believe that behavior doesn’t get fixed.
For me bots got way, way worse.
You may want to look into Peñabots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1abot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1abot
I like how the "cloned cards" are categorised as "Business","Financial Service" while the drugs seem to show up under "Health/beauty", "Medical Service", and even "Musician"(?)
I also wonder if they are actually honeypots --- that could explain why they stay up.
I also wonder if they are actually honeypots --- that could explain why they stay up.
My money is them being 99% scammers who don't have whatever they claim to sell and are just looking for idiots to send some money - and as with intentionally using spelling mistakes in scam mass-sent emails are intentionally used to help filter out people who might realise the Nigerian prince isn't real, it makes sense to look incompetent at doing the listings.
I wonder if any law enforcement agency (or researchers with an agency's permission) would / has ever do(be) a study of trying to buy from a large enough number of ads to know what % are scams vs. real.
I wonder if any law enforcement agency (or researchers with an agency's permission) would / has ever do(be) a study of trying to buy from a large enough number of ads to know what % are scams vs. real.
meta is constipated
Is it something USA-specific?
I'm from Europe, I don't have FB account, but I have (and use) Instagram one.
I didn't seen any viagra, drugs or weed/CBT advertisements once.
I see many legitimate advertisements, and lot of ads of fake outdoor and motorcycle gear (to good to be true, like undestroyable sneakers and tracking boots for 10 euro, suspicious outdoor pants for 5 euros, better-to-avoid motorcycle protective gear, etc). And I'm interested in outdoor and motorcycle gear and equipment, so this ads could be named "well targeted".
Also not-so-often there are ads of AliExpress (and in last year Temu too), of course, but they are not worse than "everything under 10 euros" brick-and-mortars shops, same cheap crap (I don't say all you could buy on Ali is cheap crap, I've bought a lot of good items here, including sometimes unique things which you could not buy locally at all, but ads use very low priced crap mostly). Again, I'm using AliExpress all the time, so these ads are not completely mis-targeted too.
Never any drugs, dietary supplements, etc.
And everybody in this thread say that they experience these obviously illegal ads.
I'm from Europe, I don't have FB account, but I have (and use) Instagram one.
I didn't seen any viagra, drugs or weed/CBT advertisements once.
I see many legitimate advertisements, and lot of ads of fake outdoor and motorcycle gear (to good to be true, like undestroyable sneakers and tracking boots for 10 euro, suspicious outdoor pants for 5 euros, better-to-avoid motorcycle protective gear, etc). And I'm interested in outdoor and motorcycle gear and equipment, so this ads could be named "well targeted".
Also not-so-often there are ads of AliExpress (and in last year Temu too), of course, but they are not worse than "everything under 10 euros" brick-and-mortars shops, same cheap crap (I don't say all you could buy on Ali is cheap crap, I've bought a lot of good items here, including sometimes unique things which you could not buy locally at all, but ads use very low priced crap mostly). Again, I'm using AliExpress all the time, so these ads are not completely mis-targeted too.
Never any drugs, dietary supplements, etc.
And everybody in this thread say that they experience these obviously illegal ads.
> Is it something USA-specific?
> I'm from Europe, I don't have FB account, but I have (and use) Instagram one.
I’m the same as you, except in the US. I haven’t seen them either.
It’s likely a matter of scale. Meta has literally billions of users. You and I are never going to see every ad on the platform, obviously, but that doesn’t mean some people are slipping drug ads into the system.
I would guess that ad targeting also plays a big role. Maybe if someone started following a lot of marijuana themed accounts and posts tagged with obvious drug references, they’d be more likely to see them.
The scammiest ads I see day to day are on YouTube these days. Lots of get rich quick investments, too good to be true products, and people selling guides or courses on the pending collapse of society.
> I'm from Europe, I don't have FB account, but I have (and use) Instagram one.
I’m the same as you, except in the US. I haven’t seen them either.
It’s likely a matter of scale. Meta has literally billions of users. You and I are never going to see every ad on the platform, obviously, but that doesn’t mean some people are slipping drug ads into the system.
I would guess that ad targeting also plays a big role. Maybe if someone started following a lot of marijuana themed accounts and posts tagged with obvious drug references, they’d be more likely to see them.
The scammiest ads I see day to day are on YouTube these days. Lots of get rich quick investments, too good to be true products, and people selling guides or courses on the pending collapse of society.
I'm in Europe too and at least obvious finance scams turn up on Instagram pretty regularly ("completely safe" investments with astronomical returns if you invest at least ~$10k, etc ...)
Yep, finance scams are everywhere, especially in YouTube (with fake "lecture" from celebrity like Musk), but on IG I seen these too.
I don't exactly know how law works everywhere, but one thing I hear is that US is one of the only places where you can see ads for prescription drugs on TV and "ask your doctor about it". That might provide some clues.
You don't see ads for these things, and you can't search for them .. they are private groups.
In my country FB was the largest marketplace for drugs for the past 10 years, but these days I think Telegram is more popular.. or it's at least 50/50
In my country FB was the largest marketplace for drugs for the past 10 years, but these days I think Telegram is more popular.. or it's at least 50/50
People here complain, that they see these ads without joining to any special private groups.
It will be strange to complain that you see drugs ads if you join private group to buy drugs.
It will be strange to complain that you see drugs ads if you join private group to buy drugs.
I get adverts for counterfeit money and NOS on Facebook every day.
There is obviously no serious reviews being undertaken, machine or human.
I don't think publisher exemptions let you this far off the hook.
I don't think publisher exemptions let you this far off the hook.
What's NOS in this context? I'm assuming nitrous oxide (colloquially, nangs :P ) but NOS typically refers to a nitrous injection system for high performance engines (https://www.holley.com/brands/nos/).
Probably, by extension, there should be some investigation on facilitation of general crime. For example, there is no way to report - let alone action - accounts and pages engaging in scams. Fake hotels and similar — which operate exclusively on Meta’s services (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp). I was a victim of something like this and the pages are still up and running.
It’s now mandatory under the EU DSA Act to process complaints about illegal content:
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
If you press the … menu next to a post/ad, there is literally a button to report it as a scam.
The reports are never actioned, you will get a reply saying that the content is not in violation of their terms.
The only way to get someone a moderator to actually evaluate some piece of content is to report upon it in high-profile media. Then you'll get it removed and a fake apology and a promise they'll do better next time.
The only way to get someone a moderator to actually evaluate some piece of content is to report upon it in high-profile media. Then you'll get it removed and a fake apology and a promise they'll do better next time.
That doesn't answer how to report an account or page for scamming.
You can't even report YOUR OWN hacked account as a scam account or hacked account.
You can't even report YOUR OWN hacked account as a scam account or hacked account.
This is the result of data-driven marketing - they know a good chunk of their base are drug users and will actively take money to illicitly market to them. This was already known from Cambridge Analytica scandal. They take money any way they can. Companies that get this big monetarily are ALWAYS guilty of having obtained that money the wrong way. Facebook, Google, Apple, you name it.
I really doubt that any of these companies want the bad publicity that comes with illicit drugs.
As someone who works on integrity for a small ad platform, I can tell you that there is no way to prevent 100% of the bad things from going through. We are tiny and still deal with highly motivated bad actors.
Fwiw, Google has also had a problem with this and has paid half a billion in fines.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-loophole-buying-drugs...
As someone who works on integrity for a small ad platform, I can tell you that there is no way to prevent 100% of the bad things from going through. We are tiny and still deal with highly motivated bad actors.
Fwiw, Google has also had a problem with this and has paid half a billion in fines.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-loophole-buying-drugs...
> there is no way to prevent 100% of the bad things from going through
That makes certain assumptions about technology and business model? If humans reviewed every ad, the way newspapers once reviewed classified ads, then you could detect near-100% of them.
Somehow tech companies have convinced everyone that they have a right to automation and an associated business model and profits, and that the right trumps even criminal activity.
Obviously, overwhelmingly - based on massive illegal sales (not just drugs, not just ads), propaganda, fraud, scams, horrific abuse of children [0] - that technology and business model have failed completely.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
That makes certain assumptions about technology and business model? If humans reviewed every ad, the way newspapers once reviewed classified ads, then you could detect near-100% of them.
Somehow tech companies have convinced everyone that they have a right to automation and an associated business model and profits, and that the right trumps even criminal activity.
Obviously, overwhelmingly - based on massive illegal sales (not just drugs, not just ads), propaganda, fraud, scams, horrific abuse of children [0] - that technology and business model have failed completely.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
It's not about want or desire. It's about what's profitable and survivable.
The U.S. should continue down the supply chain and investigate themselves. The ingress of drug components like Fentanyl end up everywhere, not just on Meta's platforms.
> The US should (...) investigate themselves.
"We have investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong." Obviously ignoring the CIA's involvement with drug trafficking, Big Pharma and politicians' friendships with them, lack of accountability in nearly every medical board...
"We have investigated ourselves, and found we did nothing wrong." Obviously ignoring the CIA's involvement with drug trafficking, Big Pharma and politicians' friendships with them, lack of accountability in nearly every medical board...
7x as many people die in the US from cigarettes every day, week, month, and year as from opioids like fentanyl.
Thus, preventing deaths is not an objective of theirs, obviously.
Thus, preventing deaths is not an objective of theirs, obviously.
during 2020, instagram heavily advertised cheap body armor, autosears, and greymarket 'not a suppressor' kits to certain demographics.
the body armor is legal. reporting the suppressors doesn't work because the kits aren't recognizable by the moderators, who don't know how a suppressor works. moderators have learned what certain kinds of autosears look like, due to rap-culture glamorization and media scares, but they're still widespread.
i think these advertising engines have a bigger hand in the political destabilization of america than anyone understands or is willing to admit. it doesn't matter if it's negligent or deliberate.
these days i see drone munition drop kits.
we may already be in the american years of lead
the body armor is legal. reporting the suppressors doesn't work because the kits aren't recognizable by the moderators, who don't know how a suppressor works. moderators have learned what certain kinds of autosears look like, due to rap-culture glamorization and media scares, but they're still widespread.
i think these advertising engines have a bigger hand in the political destabilization of america than anyone understands or is willing to admit. it doesn't matter if it's negligent or deliberate.
these days i see drone munition drop kits.
we may already be in the american years of lead
Some percentage of those were honeypots, which raises other ethical questions.
The plain old Unites States Post Office is probably the largest illegal drug distribution ring in existence. I was surprised how many of my old college friends still do drugs and just have it mailed to them.
Misleading title. Prescription drugs, but not necessarily legal advertising or legal transactions.
By contrast, the illicit drug trade uses WhatsApp (also owned by Meta), iMessage, and Signal.
By contrast, the illicit drug trade uses WhatsApp (also owned by Meta), iMessage, and Signal.
In the US, prescription drugs fall under the same legal category as fully-illegal drugs: "controlled substances". The main difference is that no one is authorized to sell heroin, but pharmacies are authorized to sell prescription opioids.
Someone who isn't licensed selling either one would technically be committing the same crime.
Someone who isn't licensed selling either one would technically be committing the same crime.
Meta has the worst reporting system and I may have touched on it here before.
I was flipping through IG and was shown Aaron Bushnell’s full video. I reported it through the app and a little while later my case was updated. It said the video meets community guidelines and was left up.
I can imagine the same reporting system not legitimately taking down posts of drug sales, prostitution, and anything else illegal. I have a hunch they use some sort of automated process of scanning videos or pictures and go off of that.
I’ll also add I’ve been shown videos of dead bodies in the trenches of Ukraine, reported those, and they say that the videos don’t violate their guidelines.
I was flipping through IG and was shown Aaron Bushnell’s full video. I reported it through the app and a little while later my case was updated. It said the video meets community guidelines and was left up.
I can imagine the same reporting system not legitimately taking down posts of drug sales, prostitution, and anything else illegal. I have a hunch they use some sort of automated process of scanning videos or pictures and go off of that.
I’ll also add I’ve been shown videos of dead bodies in the trenches of Ukraine, reported those, and they say that the videos don’t violate their guidelines.
It's remarkable how often my Instagram ads try to sell me Viagra and ketamine.
Like together as one pill? Weird.
I get the same ads. Viagra is from sites like hims.com. Ketamine is from sites like mindbloom.com. I commonly see similar ads for Testosterone, antidepressants, and Adderal is another common one.
I also get targeted with semaglutide drugs (e.g. Ozempic, Wegovy) except the ads aren't brand name. They use compound pharmacies I think to avoid using specific brands and avoid FDA approval. I'm kind of surprised it's possible to get these drugs without getting brand name given patents, etc, but I don't know the whole history of GLP drugs or whether the compound pharmacy is a loophole of some kind.
Most of the ads I see seem legitimate and aren't obviously illegal. But maybe getting stuff like Testosterone from an online virtual doc visit shouldn't be something you get targeted ads for every day.
I also get targeted with semaglutide drugs (e.g. Ozempic, Wegovy) except the ads aren't brand name. They use compound pharmacies I think to avoid using specific brands and avoid FDA approval. I'm kind of surprised it's possible to get these drugs without getting brand name given patents, etc, but I don't know the whole history of GLP drugs or whether the compound pharmacy is a loophole of some kind.
Most of the ads I see seem legitimate and aren't obviously illegal. But maybe getting stuff like Testosterone from an online virtual doc visit shouldn't be something you get targeted ads for every day.
I work at Numan.com, where we sell these exact things. I can't speak to the ad targeting (testosterone deficiency is a fairly rare condition you don't just scattergun), but selling Wegovy or Viagra online can be perfectly legal and medically valid.
It depends on how each pharmacy examines your health, I can definitely imagine that some of them just send you some Viagra without asking too many questions, but with us, Hims, etc you go through a rigorous (and sometimes fairly lengthy, as with testosterone) clinical process to determine your eligibility and risks.
It depends on how each pharmacy examines your health, I can definitely imagine that some of them just send you some Viagra without asking too many questions, but with us, Hims, etc you go through a rigorous (and sometimes fairly lengthy, as with testosterone) clinical process to determine your eligibility and risks.
> without asking too many questions, but with us, Hims, etc you go through a rigorous (and sometimes fairly lengthy, as with testosterone) clinical process to determine your eligibility
A few years ago now, but with Hims, that was absolutely not the case for me.
It was about a dozen yes/no questions, and then a <5 min text chat conversation with a doctor who told me that 2 of my answers didn't fit for prescription. "If you were to tell me you also had X symptom, then that would be applicable', and effectively allowed me to "change my answer" in the text chat.
The skeptic in me says that companies like this who employ physicians in this manner (there's no insurance/office visit fee, etc.) don't make money by telling people they "don't need" this drug.
A few years ago now, but with Hims, that was absolutely not the case for me.
It was about a dozen yes/no questions, and then a <5 min text chat conversation with a doctor who told me that 2 of my answers didn't fit for prescription. "If you were to tell me you also had X symptom, then that would be applicable', and effectively allowed me to "change my answer" in the text chat.
The skeptic in me says that companies like this who employ physicians in this manner (there's no insurance/office visit fee, etc.) don't make money by telling people they "don't need" this drug.
Ah, we don't do this, I'm surprised Hims do, but I've never used them so I don't know.
Absolutely. I wasn’t suggesting that any of it is illegal. But it is concerning that ad targeting is potentially being used to make people think they need to be on medications that normally they might not seek out.
E.g. I’m not overweight by any means, but I’m also not 5% body fat. Could wegovy help me get ripped abs? According to these ads, yes! I have actually considered trying it just for the hell of it (and out of curiosity for how it works). But it’s definitely not medically necessary (or recommended) for someone like me, but these companies will advertise and prescribe it to me anyway.
Honestly I don’t think open access to these drugs is necessarily a terrible thing, but the advertising aspect I disagree with. I’m fine with anyone using Adderall for example if they seek it out on their own, but it makes me uneasy to think people are getting prescriptions because of the ads rather than because they were seeking it out on their own.
E.g. I’m not overweight by any means, but I’m also not 5% body fat. Could wegovy help me get ripped abs? According to these ads, yes! I have actually considered trying it just for the hell of it (and out of curiosity for how it works). But it’s definitely not medically necessary (or recommended) for someone like me, but these companies will advertise and prescribe it to me anyway.
Honestly I don’t think open access to these drugs is necessarily a terrible thing, but the advertising aspect I disagree with. I’m fine with anyone using Adderall for example if they seek it out on their own, but it makes me uneasy to think people are getting prescriptions because of the ads rather than because they were seeking it out on their own.
If it's not medically necessary, we won't prescribe (though I'm sure there are businesses who might).
I get your point, I don't like advertising medications either, but there are some specific cases (like testosterone deficiency!) where someone might be tired all the time, irritable, gaining weight, etc and not realize that these symptoms have a common cause. I agree that these cases are few, though.
I get your point, I don't like advertising medications either, but there are some specific cases (like testosterone deficiency!) where someone might be tired all the time, irritable, gaining weight, etc and not realize that these symptoms have a common cause. I agree that these cases are few, though.
Amazon sells brand name semaglutide drug: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39702713
Lots of people that match your demographic must be depressed with ED!
A bit different though, as those are legal. OP article is about illegal / Schedule I sales.
A bit different though, as those are legal. OP article is about illegal / Schedule I sales.
> A bit different though, as those are legal.
I don't think it's legal to sell prescription drugs without a prescription...
I don't think it's legal to sell prescription drugs without a prescription...
I'm sure those ads are for pill-mills (similar to chat-based "therapy" [1]) where you chat with a licensed MD (probably receiving kickbacks) for 5 minutes and get a prescription for those substances.
[1]: https://www.betterhelp.com/
[1]: https://www.betterhelp.com/
I thought they were somewhat a thing of the past... I guess profits always wins.
I’m guessing we are just discussing the states right? It’s OTC in a few other countries.
right across the border in Mexico there's a pharmacy literally at every corner near San Diego, and no prescriptions are needed, you are correct.... The one at stopped at the lady let me know that she was watching the show Breaking Bad on the TV behind me... she was old and asked the other lady to get out of the store before we started doing business... she would not sell me Fentanyl though. She would only sell oxys, percs, and other stuff. I didn't buy anything though.
You’re not getting what you think you’re getting at those pharmacies though. They’re just selling labels of what Americans will buy and filling the vials with whatever they can find. The reason even pretending to sell fentanyl is off limits is because that puts them in competition with real drug dealers (even if the fentanyl is fake) which is incompatible with life.
Hims will take you through a consultation and write you a prescription, it's very well regulated, AFAIK. We (Numan.com, a provider in the same category) certainly are, often, by multiple regulatory bodies.
>OP article is about illegal / Schedule I sales.
Article is about illegal sale of legal prescription drugs - Adderal and opioid painkillers etc.
Article is about illegal sale of legal prescription drugs - Adderal and opioid painkillers etc.
Ross Ulbricht did something very similar. Online profit from drug sales.
Something tells me you had to be seeking out the Dread Pirate Roberts. He wasn’t advertising on Instagram. Aargh!
[deleted]
Section 230 is at core of problem. And the lobbying efforts the profits can buy.
Legally wsj nyt twitter vogue and instagram are completely different despite clearly being the same product.
It’s insane these platforms aren’t the same.
If you don’t believe this compatible free speech on the internet, post content you don’t think belongs on the internet here and see how quickly the community gets rid of you.
Legally wsj nyt twitter vogue and instagram are completely different despite clearly being the same product.
It’s insane these platforms aren’t the same.
If you don’t believe this compatible free speech on the internet, post content you don’t think belongs on the internet here and see how quickly the community gets rid of you.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
When those words were written there was no concept of "algorithmic" feed.
Those words make sense and indeed worked well when "information content providers" remained more or less neutral with regards to what content they provided beyond some common-sense rules.
The problems really started when algorithmic feeds appeared, where the provider now assumes an editorial role and is able to tailor the content to each user individually, with no oversight nor accountability.
Those words make sense and indeed worked well when "information content providers" remained more or less neutral with regards to what content they provided beyond some common-sense rules.
The problems really started when algorithmic feeds appeared, where the provider now assumes an editorial role and is able to tailor the content to each user individually, with no oversight nor accountability.
This is a very good point - if the content seen on a feed is curated and tailored to a specific user based on some unseen algorithm, that uses tons of opaque metrics about that person, it feels more and more like these companies take an editorial role.
A news outlet understands that there’s tons of stories daily they could report on, and they have to selectively choose those based on their target markets. I don’t see how social media sites are any different other than being able to be _more_ specific.
A news outlet understands that there’s tons of stories daily they could report on, and they have to selectively choose those based on their target markets. I don’t see how social media sites are any different other than being able to be _more_ specific.
At this point, we've moved well past baby and bathwater metaphors. If we want to call socials something, let's at least admit it is the opiate for the masses. The people have become addicted to it. It is the number one way of keeping the masses cowed. The original opiate quote as used for religions, but it hasn't been that for quite some time even before socials came along. I know I'm channeling Neil Gaiman a bit.
It seems a bit weird, I can see how the platforms might not want to aggressively police bots as like a first-order thing (they are highly engaged “users”), but you’d think actual users would be annoyed enough with them, and advertisers would be aware enough of the fact that they are essentially a skew on the stats, that the market would align against them.
Why would we keep the baby? Is it just because the baby is providing employment, or is the baby providing an essential service that can't be provided by anyone else?
At the risk of stating the obvious: people actually like social media. Yes, it’s actively harmful for society but that doesn’t mean people aren’t addicted. If a politician proposed disabling FB, Instagram, Twitter and all the rest tomorrow they’d probably not get re-elected.
Get rid of Section 230 and sites like Hacker News would be forced to go offline overnight.
People like to disparage social media platforms they don’t use, but forget that the sites they do use are playing under the same laws.
> If you don’t believe this compatible free speech on the internet, post content you don’t think belongs on the internet here and see how quickly the community gets rid of you.
You’re missing the point. The moderators and/or community getting rid of someone after they posted the content is too late. It would have been up and available for a while. The content would have already been “published” and the liability already triggered in a world where no Section 230 like protections existed.
If you like being able to post things online on websites you don’t own, you need protections like this to exist.
People like to disparage social media platforms they don’t use, but forget that the sites they do use are playing under the same laws.
> If you don’t believe this compatible free speech on the internet, post content you don’t think belongs on the internet here and see how quickly the community gets rid of you.
You’re missing the point. The moderators and/or community getting rid of someone after they posted the content is too late. It would have been up and available for a while. The content would have already been “published” and the liability already triggered in a world where no Section 230 like protections existed.
If you like being able to post things online on websites you don’t own, you need protections like this to exist.
Correct. Section 230 is so wildly misunderstood. What it's doing is protecting the owner of a website from being liable for content users post. Without those protections, there would be no comment sections, no sites like FB/IG/Twitter or Hacker News, because absolutely no one is going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content that they are liable for.
The people who rail against Section 230 and "censorship" have it exactly backwards, if they got their way and 230 went away, instead of having specific content removed they wouldn't be able to post anything at all.
The people who rail against Section 230 and "censorship" have it exactly backwards, if they got their way and 230 went away, instead of having specific content removed they wouldn't be able to post anything at all.
It looks like 230 was passed in ‘96, but Usenet was around for more than a decade before that… somehow, there seems to be a way to make it work? Email could still be possible. I wonder if something like AIM could work without 230.
Maybe federated social media? You’d only want to host people you actually trust, but maybe that isn’t so bad.
Edit: I think it is not that surprising that people misunderstand 230, specifically 230c2. We have:
* A constitution that prohibits restrictions by the government on free speech
* Provides “decency” restrictions on speech in some cases
* An exception for sites that act more like communication service providers, as long as they don’t editorialize, which considers the content they host not their speech
* A Good Samaritan exception for sites to do moderation, so their edits and redactions are not interpreted as editorializing
An exception to an exception to an exception is easy to misunderstand.
Maybe federated social media? You’d only want to host people you actually trust, but maybe that isn’t so bad.
Edit: I think it is not that surprising that people misunderstand 230, specifically 230c2. We have:
* A constitution that prohibits restrictions by the government on free speech
* Provides “decency” restrictions on speech in some cases
* An exception for sites that act more like communication service providers, as long as they don’t editorialize, which considers the content they host not their speech
* A Good Samaritan exception for sites to do moderation, so their edits and redactions are not interpreted as editorializing
An exception to an exception to an exception is easy to misunderstand.
There are other options between getting rid of section 230 and accepting the one-sided abuse of it by big tech.
What I hate is that if I have a business and allow people to sell drugs at it I will get arrested. If I have an online business where millions of people can sell millions of drugs on it all of a sudden I can't be held accountable.
Works where archive.ph is blocked:
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=915334415082&w=wpBU6M1nmBA...
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=915334415082&w=wpBU6M1nmBA...
Meta should also be penalized for facilitating scams, such as https://juicyfieldscase.com/
Almost everything META is peddling useless junk and scams.
So are X/Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, and even Microsoft - have you seen the default Windows 11 / Bing widgets and news?
You mean you don't want Candy Crush Saga advertised at you in the start menu? Inconceeeeeivable.
Platform o plomo
"Hey, that's OUR job!"
- The CIA and DEA, probably
Not just drugs but also Prostitution happens not just on facebook but also on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and other social networking sites.
Its very easy for these companies to identify and remove such content but for obivious reasons they dont do sadly
Its very easy for these companies to identify and remove such content but for obivious reasons they dont do sadly
I guess you mean solicitation and not actual prostitution? Unless they are putting up actual ads for callgirls, I’m pretty sure most of the solicitation happens via more private onlyfans and such.
At least in the USA, as long as they take down content as soon as it is identified, safe harbor should have them covered. Or maybe AI will make it super easy to tell teasing from an explicit offer to exchange sex for money.
At least in the USA, as long as they take down content as soon as it is identified, safe harbor should have them covered. Or maybe AI will make it super easy to tell teasing from an explicit offer to exchange sex for money.
AI will make it super easy to keep ads which won't draw the ire of law enforcement. TIFIFY.
Isn’t that always the case? 1st amendment doesn’t change, no matter what is involved.
Prostitution is legal in Germany, omg, what's happening. A complete shattering of the worldview.
Prostitution is legal in Germany, omg, what's happening. A complete shattering of the worldview.
Prostitution is legal in parts of the United States, too (Nevada), omg, what's happening. A complete shattering of the worldview.
Prostitution is legal in parts of the United States, too (Nevada), omg, what's happening. A complete shattering of the worldview.
Honestly, it's about time we see a crackdown on companies that act like they're "too big to bother" when it comes to obeying the law and shutting down criminal activity. The problem is that the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon have decided their sites/communities are too big to moderate properly, and have just been left as a hotbed of obviously illegal activity. Like Amazon, which is filled to the rafters with scams, counterfeit products and products that blatantly ignore safety regulations in every country they're sold in.
There needs to be an understanding that having millions of customers doesn't mean you're immune to the law and can just happily ignore all the obvious scams and crimes being committed on your platforms.
There needs to be an understanding that having millions of customers doesn't mean you're immune to the law and can just happily ignore all the obvious scams and crimes being committed on your platforms.
notfed(8)
Now do telecom companies for the same thing. This is fucking stupid, people are going to buy drugs and prostitutes through any medium. Just legalize and regulate already, but that would remove an easy wedge issue and congress can't have that. Gotta keep the people yelling at each other so they don't notice their paychecks being skimmed more and more.
I worry more about the paychecks staying the same size: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/