hoodatninja

Texas is so pro life they’ll end yours

Pretty sure SCOTUS has a case they’re hearing currently that may very well change the scope of section 230 so I’d maybe reserve your quips until after that shakes out lol

I am not missing the point. I completely understand what you’re saying. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they “missed the point.“ I hate that accusation, it’s basically a meme at this point and it’s one of the most tired Reddit habits I really wish would not be carried over here.

My issue is simple: Reality does not and will not play out the way you’re envisioning.

But not Mullvad. Bizarre to me lol

a law that forbids prosecutors from adopting a “policy” of refusing to prosecute particular types of crimes,

Let's see how that goes when white kids in the suburbs are caught with drugs.

they would be liable

How? We have no bans or restrictions on it. Who is enforcing this and how? Who is determining the acceptable amount of mercury in our food when you don’t want the FDA around to do that? You’re just assuming these things will happen without any apparatus for knowledge or enforcement.

Victim: “they put too much mercury in this product.”
Vendor: “others have mercury too you can’t possibly say this was all my fault or even to what degree.”
Society: shrugs

If you knowingly sell me a car with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable. Are you going to seriously expect every single American to become a mechanic overnight? To be able to diagnose the condition of a modern engine in 2023?

It is not reasonable to ask everybody to become experts with everything they use or need. We don’t live in rural communities in the 1500s. The breadth and depth of knowledge you need now is exponentially more burdensome. Hence why we have specialized so much.

I am ok with preemptive bans on mercury in products we make contact with. Are you not?

So you want a society based on “caveat emptor” and want to ignore the reality that people can’t possibly make fully informed decisions about everything they do daily, resulting in needless deaths and a collective shrug from society?

“Privilege” doesn’t even begin to describe your stance.

I’m sure plenty have tbh

That isn’t a middle ground. You’re just saying the state can publish a recommendation, which it always has been able to. That’s absolutely in the “unregulated” / “no safety nets” camp. It’s caveat emptor as a status quo and takes us back to the gilded age.

To put it another way: The middle ground between “the state has no authority here” and “the state can regulate away a product” isn’t “the state can suggest we don’t buy it.” It still puts the burden on the consumer in an unreasonable way. We can’t assess literally everything we consume. If I go to a grocery store and buy apples, I can reasonably assume they won’t poison me. Without basic regulations this is not possible. You can’t feed 8 billion people without some rules.

Let me be clear, I agree with the EFF on this particular issue. ISP’s should not regulate speech and what sites I browse. But it’s not the same as having the FDA. For starters, ISP’s are private corporations.

The idea sounds nice in theory, but there is a reason people bring their car to a shop instead of changing their own oil. There are a lot of things we could/should take responsibility for directly but they are far too numerous for us to take responsibility for everyone of them. Sometimes we just have to place trust in groups we loosely vetted (if at all) and hope for the best. We all do it every day in all sorts of capacities.

To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?