zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended consequences? For example:

Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards -> Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse fuel economy.

or

Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.

As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable -> Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced offline.

>>Markus+6j
>Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.

Not sure how keeping kids off the internet keeps them indoors? Surely the opposite is true?

>>jimnot+mG
In the US at least, we’re at a point where letting your kids play in your yard is enough to get arrested and jailed with child endangerment. Within the last 30 days, a woman has been arrested and charged with child endangerment for the crime of… letting her child walk to the store [1] and others have been jailed for letting their child play outside [2].

So what do you do to entertain children? Use what you have. Dunk them on the internet via YouTube first and then let them free range because you’re tired and can’t give a fuck anymore.

^1 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Family/mom-arrested-after-son... ^2 https://www.aol.com/news/2015-12-03-woman-gets-arrested-for-...

>>indror+0K
Thanks, I needed that. In a thread full of people criticising UK law, I am very happy to have a crazy US example to make me feel better.