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
Politicians should take a mandatory one-week training in:

- very basic macro economics

- very basic game theory

- very basic statistics

Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school

>>FredPr+Mo
I think you’re being overly charitable in thinking this happens because they don’t understand these things. The main thing is that they don’t care. The purpose of passing legislation to protect the children isn’t to protect the children, it’s to get reelected.

If we can get the voters to understand the things you mention, then maybe we’d have a chance.

>>wat100+jx
> protect the children isn’t to protect the children, it’s to get reelected

The next UK general election is ~5 years away so this makes no sense.

The more likely reason is that it's simply good policy. We have enough research now that shows that (a) social media use is harmful for children and (b) social media companies like Meta, TikTok etc have done a wilfully poor job at protecting them.

It is bizarre to me how many people here seem willing to defend them.