I am a programmer and I'm fine we sell tools that can injure. So does Home Depot. I'm a lot iffier about when the product injures by design or is indifferent to it. But again, ethics or legality I'm not sure. Bookstore or tobacco company?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I'm a card-carrying member of @eff.org . They have great points about why the Take it Down act is bad. What the UK is doing to encryption. But I struggle with the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too game of promoting harmful content and also denying knowledge it's there or ability to better control it.
Yes, 100%. Back during COVID when people were clamoring for censoring "misinformation" my head was on that was a wildly dangerous law. Fortunately and unfortunately, I was right.
But tobacco is harmful and not illegal and it's been highly regulated and found to have liability.
As is the tradition of my people, I answer your question with a question: How would the people who will make those decisions and enforce them by law for at least the next 4 years answer that question?
If you're not familiar with it, the Force case I mentioned is pretty much exactly the latter case.
And, to my broader point, the outcome of this case always struck me as gross but I can't decide what *law* could've prevented this without doing greater harm.
Comments
All speech someone wants to censor is speech they claim is harmful. No one says “This must be banned because it’s harmless! Good, even!”
If, say, the head of HHS claimed recommending *vaccines* was harmful, would you give him the tools to ban speech promoting vaccines?
But tobacco is harmful and not illegal and it's been highly regulated and found to have liability.
how about nazi recruiting ads?
And, to my broader point, the outcome of this case always struck me as gross but I can't decide what *law* could've prevented this without doing greater harm.
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-force-v-facebook-2d-circuit