test data for gemini

data.json

{"questions":[{"id":17,"text":"Should \"deceptive design patterns\" on the internet be illegal?","supp_info":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"deceptive design patterns\\\" are aspects of digital interfaces that obscure its behavior and/or manipulate users into taking certain actions, often against their best interests. A database of some patterns, examples and connected legal cases is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"here\"}]}]}]}]}","created_at":"2024-01-22T15:01:32.838Z","suppInfoHTML":"<ul><li><p>&quot;deceptive design patterns&quot; are aspects of digital interfaces that obscure its behavior and/or manipulate users into taking certain actions, often against their best interests. A database of some patterns, examples and connected legal cases is <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\">here</a></p></li></ul>"}],"viewpoints":[{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-07-12T22:39:27.239Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without a doubt\"}]}]}","yes_percent":100,"decline_position":null,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","htmlText":"<p>Without a doubt</p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T21:20:28.781Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the harder but better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is just a little too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation.  Feels like this is the direction of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we need to accept as inevitable reality in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the end, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}}]}","yes_percent":10,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<p>I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.</p><p>I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. </p><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.  </p><p>I think that the harder but better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p><p>Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is just a little too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation.  Feels like this is the direction of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we need to accept as inevitable reality in a market.</p><p>In the end, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p></p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:06:38.335Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without a doubt.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the \\\"cat-and-mouse\\\"/\\\"attack-and-defend\\\" game of industry innovation and government regulation, advances in communication technology have exposed the tendency for industry to aggressively exploit \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"anything \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"for the sake of profit until it is forced to stop. Regulation has only begun to address the surface of these issues, such as tracking consent via cookies and data usage transparency. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The underpinnings of this issue are a variety of instinctive levers that technology is able to pull to affect people in consistent ways at massive scales. They should not be allowed to be pulled. \\\"Dark patterns\\\" are some of the most common of these levers.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Part of the solution is raising consciousness about how your mind may be manipulated while using technology, but some of the systems are so effective and large that even with knowledge it's difficult to keep up. It is a stacked deck against the individual and it's not enough to \\\"trust everyone to form their own opinion\\\", which is akin to asking each household to filter its own water when we know there is a pollutant upstream.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Dark patterns are akin to industrial waste in our waterways and should be removed.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Clarifications\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"as worded, this question to me ignores implementation details\"}]}]}]}]}","yes_percent":100,"decline_position":null,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","htmlText":"<p>Without a doubt.</p><p></p><p>In the &quot;cat-and-mouse&quot;/&quot;attack-and-defend&quot; game of industry innovation and government regulation, advances in communication technology have exposed the tendency for industry to aggressively exploit <em>anything </em>for the sake of profit until it is forced to stop. Regulation has only begun to address the surface of these issues, such as tracking consent via cookies and data usage transparency. </p><p>The underpinnings of this issue are a variety of instinctive levers that technology is able to pull to affect people in consistent ways at massive scales. They should not be allowed to be pulled. &quot;Dark patterns&quot; are some of the most common of these levers.</p><p>Part of the solution is raising consciousness about how your mind may be manipulated while using technology, but some of the systems are so effective and large that even with knowledge it&apos;s difficult to keep up. It is a stacked deck against the individual and it&apos;s not enough to &quot;trust everyone to form their own opinion&quot;, which is akin to asking each household to filter its own water when we know there is a pollutant upstream.</p><p>Dark patterns are akin to industrial waste in our waterways and should be removed.</p><p></p><h5>Clarifications</h5><ul><li><p>as worded, this question to me ignores implementation details</p></li></ul>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-07-30T22:24:31.485Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A better \\\"supp info\\\" link is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"here\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" which is kept more up to date with patterns and associated legislation surrounding them.\"}]},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Clarifications\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"as worded, this question to me ignores implementation details, such as specific legislation. It aims to get alignment on 1) \\\"are these things bad, in general?\\\" and 2) \\\"do they create such \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"unfair\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"circumstances\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for people that we'd like to avoid them, broadly?\\\".\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Reasoning\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without a doubt.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the \\\"cat-and-mouse\\\"/\\\"attack-and-defend\\\" game of industry innovation and government regulation, advances in communication technology have exposed the tendency for industry to aggressively exploit \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"anything \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"for the sake of profit until it is forced to stop. Regulation has only begun to address the surface of these issues, such as tracking consent via cookies and data usage transparency. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The underpinnings of this issue are a variety of instinctive levers that technology is able to pull to affect people in consistent ways at massive scales. They should not be allowed to be pulled. \\\"Dark patterns\\\" are some of the most common of these levers.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Part of the solution is raising consciousness about how your mind may be manipulated while using technology, but some of the systems are so effective and large that even with knowledge it's difficult to keep up. It is a stacked deck against the individual and it's not enough to \\\"trust everyone to form their own opinion\\\", which is akin to asking each household to filter its own water when we know there is a pollutant upstream.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Dark patterns are akin to industrial waste in our waterways and should be removed.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Another chapter in consumer rights: from snake oil salesmen to slash-through prices.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"TODO\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\": discussing the history of marketing and \\\"dark patterns\\\" as a natural extension of similar techniques in the past, but amplified by scale of modern communications tech\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Dark Pattern breakdown:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"TODO\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\": more granular discussion of each pattern, how \\\"bad\\\" it is and potential legislation\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5}}]}","yes_percent":100,"decline_position":null,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","htmlText":"<p>A better &quot;supp info&quot; link is <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\">here</a> which is kept more up to date with patterns and associated legislation surrounding them.</p><hr><h5>Clarifications</h5><ul><li><p>as worded, this question to me ignores implementation details, such as specific legislation. It aims to get alignment on 1) &quot;are these things bad, in general?&quot; and 2) &quot;do they create such <strong>unfair</strong> <strong>circumstances</strong> for people that we&apos;d like to avoid them, broadly?&quot;.</p></li></ul><p></p><h5>Reasoning</h5><p>Without a doubt.</p><p></p><p>In the &quot;cat-and-mouse&quot;/&quot;attack-and-defend&quot; game of industry innovation and government regulation, advances in communication technology have exposed the tendency for industry to aggressively exploit <em>anything </em>for the sake of profit until it is forced to stop. Regulation has only begun to address the surface of these issues, such as tracking consent via cookies and data usage transparency. </p><p>The underpinnings of this issue are a variety of instinctive levers that technology is able to pull to affect people in consistent ways at massive scales. They should not be allowed to be pulled. &quot;Dark patterns&quot; are some of the most common of these levers.</p><p>Part of the solution is raising consciousness about how your mind may be manipulated while using technology, but some of the systems are so effective and large that even with knowledge it&apos;s difficult to keep up. It is a stacked deck against the individual and it&apos;s not enough to &quot;trust everyone to form their own opinion&quot;, which is akin to asking each household to filter its own water when we know there is a pollutant upstream.</p><p>Dark patterns are akin to industrial waste in our waterways and should be removed.</p><p></p><p>Another chapter in consumer rights: from snake oil salesmen to slash-through prices.</p><ul><li><p><strong>TODO</strong>: discussing the history of marketing and &quot;dark patterns&quot; as a natural extension of similar techniques in the past, but amplified by scale of modern communications tech</p></li></ul><p></p><p>Dark Pattern breakdown:</p><ul><li><p><strong>TODO</strong>: more granular discussion of each pattern, how &quot;bad&quot; it is and potential legislation</p></li></ul><p></p><h5></h5>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-08-04T17:32:02.461Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(testing update here a minute)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the harder but better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is just a little too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation.  Feels like this is the direction of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we need to accept as inevitable reality in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the end, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}}]}","yes_percent":10,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<p>(testing update here a minute)</p><p>I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.</p><p>I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. </p><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.  </p><p>I think that the harder but better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p><p>Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is just a little too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation.  Feels like this is the direction of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we need to accept as inevitable reality in a market.</p><p>In the end, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p></p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-12-29T19:11:16.111Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a bit vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won't be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"partnering with business experts\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\") and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is often too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn't know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That's a hard no.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For those who say \\\"Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal\\\", please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"I use \\\"X\\\" here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you've done!)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. It is a \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"What should we do about X?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X should be illegal\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are many potential negative consequences to introducing \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"new legislation on business.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\" But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. Let's apply the \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" questions above.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it causes harm. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it always causes harm.  \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect you agree with all that. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So, should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" but also \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"legislation feasible\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bottom Line\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.\"}]}]}","yes_percent":0,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<p>I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.</p><p>I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a bit vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. </p><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won&apos;t be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called &quot;<em>partnering with business experts</em>&quot;) and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. </p><p>I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.</p><p>In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is often too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.</p><p>To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p>As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn&apos;t know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That&apos;s a hard no.</p><p>For those who say &quot;Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal&quot;, please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions. <em>I use &quot;X&quot; here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you&apos;ve done!)</em></p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;.</p><p>The question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; question. It is a &quot;<em>What should we do about X?</em>&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;<em>X should be illegal</em>&quot; is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.</p><h5>Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation </h5><p>There are many potential negative consequences to introducing <em>any </em>new legislation on business.</p><ul><li><p>It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot; But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. Let&apos;s apply the &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; questions above.</p><ul><li><p>I think it causes harm. </p></li><li><p>I think it always causes harm.  </p></li><li><p>I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. </p></li><li><p>I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. </p></li></ul><p>I suspect you agree with all that. </p><p>So, should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; but also &quot;<em>legislation feasible</em>&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.</p><h5>Bottom Line</h5><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>If you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.</p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2023-12-29T19:13:36.953Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a bit vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won't be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"partnering with business experts\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\") and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is often too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn't know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That's a hard no.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For those who say \\\"Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal\\\", please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"I use \\\"X\\\" here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you've done!)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. It is a \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"What should we do about X?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X should be illegal\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are many potential negative consequences to introducing \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"new legislation on business.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\" But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. Let's apply the \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" questions above.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it causes harm. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it always causes harm.  \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect you agree with all that. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So, should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" but also \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"legislation feasible\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bottom Line\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.\"}]}]}","yes_percent":0,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<p>I think that serious exploration of this would require isolating individual dark patterns and recommending specific descriptions and definitions that any such legislation would require.</p><p>I liked that the link in the Supp Info provided a good overview of the 12 common dark patterns, but some of these are a bit vague and not all of them are equally objectionable. </p><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won&apos;t be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called &quot;<em>partnering with business experts</em>&quot;) and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. </p><p>I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.</p><p>In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is often too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.</p><p>To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p>As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn&apos;t know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That&apos;s a hard no.</p><p>For those who say &quot;Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal&quot;, please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions. <em>I use &quot;X&quot; here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you&apos;ve done!)</em></p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;.</p><p>The question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; question. It is a &quot;<em>What should we do about X?</em>&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;<em>X should be illegal</em>&quot; is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.</p><h5>Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation </h5><p>There are many potential negative consequences to introducing <em>any </em>new legislation on business.</p><ul><li><p>It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot; But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. Let&apos;s apply the &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; questions above.</p><ul><li><p>I think it causes harm. </p></li><li><p>I think it always causes harm.  </p></li><li><p>I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. </p></li><li><p>I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. </p></li></ul><p>I suspect you agree with all that. </p><p>So, should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; but also &quot;<em>legislation feasible</em>&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.</p><h5>Bottom Line</h5><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>If you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.</p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2024-01-05T19:15:19.883Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"An Allegory\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A couple hired Bill to do some landscaping because they were having trouble keeping the yard under control. But it turned out that Bill was not only expensive, but did kind of a lousy job. Bill was a very good salesman though, so he was always able to sell the couple on more services he could provide to really get a handle on things. Over time, the couple was paying Bill more and more money but getting worse and worse results. The yard was looking worse than ever, but somehow Bill always convinced them that it would be far worse still if they ever stopped paying him more and more money. One day, the wife noticed that skunks had moved in under the shed. \\\"No problem,\\\" said the husband, \\\"I'm sure Bill can handle that too!\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Of course, nobody would argue that the skunk situation did not need to be addressed. The question on the table is whether Bill is the guy to do it. The husband's fallacy is that he thinks the only way to get things done in his garden is to hire Bill. And that's very much like the fallacy built into this question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The government already has it's hands full spending our money to fail at solving too many of our problems.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Limits of Legislation\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won't be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"partnering with business experts\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\") and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is often too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn't know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That's a hard no.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For those who say \\\"Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal\\\", please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"I use \\\"X\\\" here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you've done!)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. It is a \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"What should we do about X?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X should be illegal\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are many potential negative consequences to introducing \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"new legislation on business.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\" But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. Let's apply the \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" questions above.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it causes harm. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it always causes harm.  \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect you agree with all that. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So, should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" but also \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"legislation feasible\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bottom Line\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.\"}]}]}","yes_percent":0,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<h5>An Allegory</h5><p>A couple hired Bill to do some landscaping because they were having trouble keeping the yard under control. But it turned out that Bill was not only expensive, but did kind of a lousy job. Bill was a very good salesman though, so he was always able to sell the couple on more services he could provide to really get a handle on things. Over time, the couple was paying Bill more and more money but getting worse and worse results. The yard was looking worse than ever, but somehow Bill always convinced them that it would be far worse still if they ever stopped paying him more and more money. One day, the wife noticed that skunks had moved in under the shed. &quot;No problem,&quot; said the husband, &quot;I&apos;m sure Bill can handle that too!&quot;</p><p>Of course, nobody would argue that the skunk situation did not need to be addressed. The question on the table is whether Bill is the guy to do it. The husband&apos;s fallacy is that he thinks the only way to get things done in his garden is to hire Bill. And that&apos;s very much like the fallacy built into this question.</p><p>The government already has it&apos;s hands full spending our money to fail at solving too many of our problems.</p><h5>Limits of Legislation</h5><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won&apos;t be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called &quot;<em>partnering with business experts</em>&quot;) and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. </p><p>I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.</p><p>In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is often too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.</p><p>To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p>As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn&apos;t know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That&apos;s a hard no.</p><p>For those who say &quot;Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal&quot;, please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions. <em>I use &quot;X&quot; here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you&apos;ve done!)</em></p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;.</p><p>The question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; question. It is a &quot;<em>What should we do about X?</em>&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;<em>X should be illegal</em>&quot; is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.</p><h5>Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation </h5><p>There are many potential negative consequences to introducing <em>any </em>new legislation on business.</p><ul><li><p>It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot; But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. Let&apos;s apply the &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; questions above.</p><ul><li><p>I think it causes harm. </p></li><li><p>I think it always causes harm.  </p></li><li><p>I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. </p></li><li><p>I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. </p></li></ul><p>I suspect you agree with all that. </p><p>So, should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; but also &quot;<em>legislation feasible</em>&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.</p><h5>Bottom Line</h5><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>If you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.</p>"},{"question_id":17,"pub_ts":"2024-01-05T19:17:16.957Z","explanation":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"An Allegory\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A couple hired Bill to do some landscaping because they were having trouble keeping the yard under control. But it turned out that Bill was not only expensive, but did kind of a lousy job. Bill was a very good salesman though, so he was always able to sell the couple on more services he could provide to really get a handle on things. Over time, the couple was paying Bill more and more money but getting worse and worse results. The yard was looking worse than ever, but somehow Bill always convinced them that it would be far worse still if they ever stopped paying him more and more money. One day, the wife noticed that skunks had moved in under the shed. \\\"No problem,\\\" said the husband, \\\"I'm sure Bill can handle that too!\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Of course, nobody would argue that the skunk situation did not need to be addressed. The question on the table is whether Bill is the guy to do it. The husband's fallacy is that he thinks the only way to get things done in his garden is to hire Bill. And that's very much like the fallacy built into this question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The government already has it's hands full spending too much of our money on failing to solve too many of our problems.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Limits of Legislation\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won't be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"partnering with business experts\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\") and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The \\\"buyer beware\\\" approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is often too fuzzy and I don't see practical legislative solutions that don't overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of \\\"the food you served me doesn't look like the picture on the menu\\\" kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn't know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That's a hard no.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For those who say \\\"Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal\\\", please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"I use \\\"X\\\" here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you've done!)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. It is a \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"What should we do about X?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X should be illegal\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are many potential negative consequences to introducing \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"new legislation on business.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\" But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. Let's apply the \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" questions above.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it causes harm. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it always causes harm.  \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect you agree with all that. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So, should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" but also \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"legislation feasible\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, \\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X Bad\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bottom Line\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.\"}]}]}","yes_percent":0,"decline_position":null,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","htmlText":"<h5>An Allegory</h5><p>A couple hired Bill to do some landscaping because they were having trouble keeping the yard under control. But it turned out that Bill was not only expensive, but did kind of a lousy job. Bill was a very good salesman though, so he was always able to sell the couple on more services he could provide to really get a handle on things. Over time, the couple was paying Bill more and more money but getting worse and worse results. The yard was looking worse than ever, but somehow Bill always convinced them that it would be far worse still if they ever stopped paying him more and more money. One day, the wife noticed that skunks had moved in under the shed. &quot;No problem,&quot; said the husband, &quot;I&apos;m sure Bill can handle that too!&quot;</p><p>Of course, nobody would argue that the skunk situation did not need to be addressed. The question on the table is whether Bill is the guy to do it. The husband&apos;s fallacy is that he thinks the only way to get things done in his garden is to hire Bill. And that&apos;s very much like the fallacy built into this question.</p><p>The government already has it&apos;s hands full spending too much of our money on failing to solve too many of our problems.</p><h5>Limits of Legislation</h5><p>If we lived in a world where legislation could be written, enacted, enforced, and adjudicated upon in a way that would meet the original intent without unintended consequences, then it would be easy to go along with this question.  But none of these things are true in reality. </p><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear boundaries and bring us back to square one. Except it won&apos;t be exactly square one. Because it is likely that any such legislation will actually be written by lobbyists hired by the biggest players in the industry (this is called &quot;<em>partnering with business experts</em>&quot;) and will therefore be easy for these big players to comply with, while making things very difficult on their smaller competitors. The more such legislation grows and becomes highly influential to any online business, the more you can expect a government bureaucracy to grow up around it, and for revolving doors to develop between that bureaucracy and the affected corporate boardrooms, C-suites, and so on. </p><p>I think that the short-term-harder but long-term-much-better answer to dark patterns is 1) education of consumers, and 2) competition. </p><p>The &quot;buyer beware&quot; approach is appropriate for a lot of this stuff and the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone. And the more some businesses thrive on subtle deceptions and the like, the more a competitive lane opens for those that refuse to play these games, and can make hay out of pointing out the sleazy ways of their sleazy competitors.</p><p>In cases where clear, distinct, and simple lines can be drawn to eliminate fraud, legislation might be considered. Unfortunately, the line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is often too fuzzy and I don&apos;t see practical legislative solutions that don&apos;t overly empower bureaucrats (worst possible outcome) and/or stifle real innovation (also very bad).  Many of these patterns remind me of &quot;the food you served me doesn&apos;t look like the picture on the menu&quot; kind of stuff, much of which we simply learn to accept and understand as savvy consumers in a market.</p><p>To repeat, I am not opposed to well-defined, fair, anti-fraud legislation, but the devil is in the details, so this question is too broad to support. </p><p>As worded, I can only assume that this applies to an incredibly broad law, which would mean that the details of enforcement would be left to the judgement of bureaucrats, police powers, and judges. Businesses wouldn&apos;t know what was and was not legal until it bit them. That&apos;s a hard no.</p><p>For those who say &quot;Dark Patterns are simply awful and therefore we must make them illegal&quot;, please consider reading the rest of this Explanation.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions. <em>I use &quot;X&quot; here as a placeholder for any potentially bad thing (not a reference to the former Twitter. Jesus, Musk. Look what you&apos;ve done!)</em></p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;.</p><p>The question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; question. It is a &quot;<em>What should we do about X?</em>&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;<em>X should be illegal</em>&quot; is to say we should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that produces X. </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. Why not? Because legislation has costs and unintended consequences that may outweigh the badness of X.</p><h5>Potential Negative Impacts of Dark Pattern Legislation </h5><p>There are many potential negative consequences to introducing <em>any </em>new legislation on business.</p><ul><li><p>It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal traps, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It may create soft citizens who look to the government to protect them from badness, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving badness with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot; But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. Let&apos;s apply the &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; questions above.</p><ul><li><p>I think it causes harm. </p></li><li><p>I think it always causes harm.  </p></li><li><p>I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. </p></li><li><p>I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. </p></li></ul><p>I suspect you agree with all that. </p><p>So, should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot; but also &quot;<em>legislation feasible</em>&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that impulse items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are gross at some level. Again, &quot;<em>X Bad</em>&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the violation and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. And maybe most importantly, because we choose to treat shoppers like adults.</p><h5>Bottom Line</h5><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>If you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive to isolate a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. If anyone chooses to do this, please LEM me, as I would likely join the discussion.</p>"}],"responses":[{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T21:21:20.145Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would be nice to see a real explanation here. \"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>Would be nice to see a real explanation here. </p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:30:14.039Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"","no_comment":null,"htmlText":""},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:37:32.959Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"27\",\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":[]}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"28\",\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":[]}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:41:15.770Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That said, you can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</p><p>That said, you can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot; </p><p>I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.</p><p></p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:42:34.491Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"BTW: I was not up to date on your latest DC to me when I wrote this - my apologies - catching up now!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That said, you can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.\"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>BTW: I was not up to date on your latest DC to me when I wrote this - my apologies - catching up now!</p><p>It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</p><p>That said, you can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot; </p><p>I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.</p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-24T22:47:44.049Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That said, you can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm going to resist taking up the two UQ's you identified in your DC. I'm starting to sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics.  I don't necessary mind going general, but not at the cost of every going specific.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.\"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</p><p>That said, you can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot; </p><p>I&apos;m going to resist taking up the two UQ&apos;s you identified in your DC. I&apos;m starting to sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics.  I don&apos;t necessary mind going general, but not at the cost of every going specific.</p><p>So I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor.  My guess is that some will be much easier than others.</p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-07-30T22:01:00.699Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"desire\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"demonstrate that such a thing is possible\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A wide variety of \\\"user first\\\" regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"all of GDPR and data privacy\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cookie usage in general has been cut back upon\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"apps prompting you for permission usage\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying \\\"governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal\\\" then I think it would match your example.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The full analogy to me would overlap like this:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I'm saying is more like \\\"governments should make reckless driving illegal\\\" or \\\"governments should enforce wearing seat belts\\\", which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":28,\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<blockquote><p>...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics</p></blockquote><p>The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.</p></blockquote><p>I think that the <em>desire</em> for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.</p><blockquote><p>demonstrate that such a thing is possible</p></blockquote><p>A wide variety of &quot;user first&quot; regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,</p><ul><li><p>all of GDPR and data privacy</p></li><li><p>the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed</p><ul><li><p>cookie usage in general has been cut back upon</p></li></ul></li><li><p>apps prompting you for permission usage</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot;</p></blockquote><p>I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying &quot;governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal&quot; then I think it would match your example.</p><p>The full analogy to me would overlap like this:</p><ul><li><p>car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding</p></li><li><p>reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration</p></li><li><p>seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions</p></li></ul><p>What I&apos;m saying is more like &quot;governments should make reckless driving illegal&quot; or &quot;governments should enforce wearing seat belts&quot;, which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.</p><p></p><hr><p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-01T19:52:43.606Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"","no_comment":null,"htmlText":""},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-01T20:21:38.711Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, your\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I'm not opposed to going there with you, but I think it's important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"X Bad\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are \\\"X Bad\\\" questions. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But the question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"X Bad\\\" question. It is a \\\"What should we do about X?\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's a better analogy than my previous car accident one. Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\". But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"X Bad\\\" but also \\\"Legislation feasible\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So if you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. \"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, your<strong> Clarifications</strong> are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I&apos;m not opposed to going there with you, but I think it&apos;s important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.</p><p>Here are some inter-related questions:</p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;X Bad&quot;.</p><p>Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are &quot;X Bad&quot; questions. </p><p>But the question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;X Bad&quot; question. It is a &quot;What should we do about X?&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>Here&apos;s a better analogy than my previous car accident one. Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot;. But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.</p><p>Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;X Bad&quot; but also &quot;Legislation feasible&quot;. </p><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>So if you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. </p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-04T04:26:21.501Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I'm still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"thank you! I think this new analogy is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"great\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"my answer to \\\"Should social dark patterns be illegal?\\\" is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"truly\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tough. I don't think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I still think my viewpoint addresses the \\\"should be illegal\\\" question\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"desire\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"demonstrate that such a thing is possible\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A wide variety of \\\"user first\\\" regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"all of GDPR and data privacy\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cookie usage in general has been cut back upon\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"apps prompting you for permission usage\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying \\\"governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal\\\" then I think it would match your example.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The full analogy to me would overlap like this:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I'm saying is more like \\\"governments should make reckless driving illegal\\\" or \\\"governments should enforce wearing seat belts\\\", which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":28,\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I&apos;m still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)</p><ul><li><p>thank you! I think this new analogy is <strong>great</strong></p></li><li><p>my answer to &quot;Should social dark patterns be illegal?&quot; is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are <em>truly</em> tough. I don&apos;t think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. </p></li><li><p>the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults</p></li><li><p>I still think my viewpoint addresses the &quot;should be illegal&quot; question</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics</p></blockquote><p>The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.</p></blockquote><p>I think that the <em>desire</em> for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.</p><blockquote><p>demonstrate that such a thing is possible</p></blockquote><p>A wide variety of &quot;user first&quot; regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,</p><ul><li><p>all of GDPR and data privacy</p></li><li><p>the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed</p><ul><li><p>cookie usage in general has been cut back upon</p></li></ul></li><li><p>apps prompting you for permission usage</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot;</p></blockquote><p>I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying &quot;governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal&quot; then I think it would match your example.</p><p>The full analogy to me would overlap like this:</p><ul><li><p>car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding</p></li><li><p>reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration</p></li><li><p>seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions</p></li></ul><p>What I&apos;m saying is more like &quot;governments should make reckless driving illegal&quot; or &quot;governments should enforce wearing seat belts&quot;, which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.</p><p></p><hr><p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-04T17:45:09.703Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, your\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I'm not opposed to going there with you, but I think it's important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"X Bad\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are \\\"X Bad\\\" questions. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But the question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"X Bad\\\" question. It is a \\\"What should we do about X?\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's a better analogy than my previous car accident one. Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\". But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"X Bad\\\" but also \\\"Legislation feasible\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that \\\"impulse\\\" items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are \\\"gross\\\" at some level. Again, \\\"X Bad\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So if you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. \"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, your<strong> Clarifications</strong> are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I&apos;m not opposed to going there with you, but I think it&apos;s important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.</p><p>Here are some inter-related questions:</p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;X Bad&quot;.</p><p>Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are &quot;X Bad&quot; questions. </p><p>But the question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;X Bad&quot; question. It is a &quot;What should we do about X?&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>Here&apos;s a better analogy than my previous car accident one. Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot;. But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.</p><p>Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;X Bad&quot; but also &quot;Legislation feasible&quot;. </p><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that &quot;impulse&quot; items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are &quot;gross&quot; at some level. Again, &quot;X Bad&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. </p><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>So if you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. </p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-07T00:27:40.953Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I'm still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"thank you! I think this new analogy is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"great\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"my answer to \\\"Should social dark patterns be illegal?\\\" is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"truly\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tough. I don't think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I still think my viewpoint addresses the \\\"should be illegal\\\" question\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the \\\"hip to eye level\\\" real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren't legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they're just low priority.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"one of your examples\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" is playing out in the UK\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"this doesn't relate to our basic disagreement that \\\"should be illegal\\\" requires dealing with implementation details.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good \\\"deceptive design\\\" analogies and do have legislation:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"package labeling - \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"nutritional information\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", misleading phrasing, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"accurate information\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"price fixing\"}]}]}]}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"desire\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"demonstrate that such a thing is possible\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A wide variety of \\\"user first\\\" regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"all of GDPR and data privacy\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cookie usage in general has been cut back upon\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"apps prompting you for permission usage\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying \\\"governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal\\\" then I think it would match your example.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The full analogy to me would overlap like this:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I'm saying is more like \\\"governments should make reckless driving illegal\\\" or \\\"governments should enforce wearing seat belts\\\", which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":28,\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I&apos;m still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)</p><ul><li><p>thank you! I think this new analogy is <strong>great</strong></p></li><li><p>my answer to &quot;Should social dark patterns be illegal?&quot; is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are <em>truly</em> tough. I don&apos;t think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. </p></li><li><p>the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults</p></li><li><p>I still think my viewpoint addresses the &quot;should be illegal&quot; question</p></li><li><p>another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the &quot;hip to eye level&quot; real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!</p></li><li><p>&quot;we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation&quot;</p><ul><li><p>I don&apos;t think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren&apos;t legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they&apos;re just low priority.</p></li><li><p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">one of your examples</a> is playing out in the UK</p></li><li><p>this doesn&apos;t relate to our basic disagreement that &quot;should be illegal&quot; requires dealing with implementation details.</p></li><li><p>there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good &quot;deceptive design&quot; analogies and do have legislation:</p><ul><li><p>package labeling - <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\">nutritional information</a>, misleading phrasing, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\">accurate information</a></p></li><li><p>price fixing</p></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics</p></blockquote><p>The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.</p></blockquote><p>I think that the <em>desire</em> for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.</p><blockquote><p>demonstrate that such a thing is possible</p></blockquote><p>A wide variety of &quot;user first&quot; regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,</p><ul><li><p>all of GDPR and data privacy</p></li><li><p>the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed</p><ul><li><p>cookie usage in general has been cut back upon</p></li></ul></li><li><p>apps prompting you for permission usage</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot;</p></blockquote><p>I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying &quot;governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal&quot; then I think it would match your example.</p><p>The full analogy to me would overlap like this:</p><ul><li><p>car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding</p></li><li><p>reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration</p></li><li><p>seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions</p></li></ul><p>What I&apos;m saying is more like &quot;governments should make reckless driving illegal&quot; or &quot;governments should enforce wearing seat belts&quot;, which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.</p><p></p><hr><p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-07T16:59:08.704Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Note: 8/7 updates are not complete - work in progress\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, your\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I'm not opposed to going there with you, but I think it's important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"X Bad\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are \\\"X Bad\\\" questions. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But the question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"X Bad\\\" question. It is a \\\"What should we do about X?\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"X should be illegal\\\" is to say \\\"We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. So one might ask what guidelines help us determine what sorts of \\\"bad\\\" justify such legislation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are negative consequences to expanding the realm of illegality in business operations.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It becomes harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It funnels more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It favors large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It chills innovation. The more the world is full of legal \\\"traps\\\", the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It creates \\\"soft citizens\\\" who look to the government to \\\"protect\\\" them from \\\"badness\\\", as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving \\\"badness\\\" with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\". But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"X Bad\\\" but also \\\"Legislation feasible\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that \\\"impulse\\\" items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are \\\"gross\\\" at some level. Again, \\\"X Bad\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So if you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. \"}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p><em>Note: 8/7 updates are not complete - work in progress</em></p><p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, your<strong> Clarifications</strong> are out of alignment with the wording of the question. Your latest DC helped me understand what you are going for, and I&apos;m not opposed to going there with you, but I think it&apos;s important to try to clarify the framing of all this and put the right discussion under the right question.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions:</p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;X Bad&quot;.</p><p>Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are &quot;X Bad&quot; questions. </p><p>But the question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;X Bad&quot; question. It is a &quot;What should we do about X?&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;X should be illegal&quot; is to say &quot;We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.&quot; </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. So one might ask what guidelines help us determine what sorts of &quot;bad&quot; justify such legislation. </p><p>There are negative consequences to expanding the realm of illegality in business operations.</p><ul><li><p>It becomes harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It funnels more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It favors large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It chills innovation. The more the world is full of legal &quot;traps&quot;, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It creates &quot;soft citizens&quot; who look to the government to &quot;protect&quot; them from &quot;badness&quot;, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving &quot;badness&quot; with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot;. But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. I think it causes harm. I think it always causes harm.  I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. I suspect you would agree with all that.</p><p>Now: Should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;X Bad&quot; but also &quot;Legislation feasible&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that &quot;impulse&quot; items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are &quot;gross&quot; at some level. Again, &quot;X Bad&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. </p><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>So if you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. </p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-09T17:44:15.700Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I'm still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"thank you! I think this new analogy is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"great\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"my answer to \\\"Should social dark patterns be illegal?\\\" is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"truly\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tough. I don't think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I still think my viewpoint addresses the \\\"should be illegal\\\" question\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the \\\"hip to eye level\\\" real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren't legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they're just low priority.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"one of your examples\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" is playing out in the UK\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"this doesn't relate to our basic disagreement that \\\"should be illegal\\\" requires dealing with implementation details.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good \\\"deceptive design\\\" analogies and do have legislation:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"package labeling - \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"nutritional information\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", misleading phrasing, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"accurate information\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"price fixing\"}]}]}]}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"X should be illegal\\\" is to say \\\"We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.\\\" \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"(attempt to resolve semantic misalignment)\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" This is our basic disagreement on \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"this \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"question, the rest are details and related disagreements. It actually means, \\\"the effects are so bad, by whatever guidelines, that we should \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"consider \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"legislation\\\". Get it in the pipeline. Talk about it. This is the first step in a basic filtration of all \\\"bad\\\" things to take them further.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"desire\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"demonstrate that such a thing is possible\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A wide variety of \\\"user first\\\" regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"all of GDPR and data privacy\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cookie usage in general has been cut back upon\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"apps prompting you for permission usage\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying \\\"governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal\\\" then I think it would match your example.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The full analogy to me would overlap like this:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I'm saying is more like \\\"governments should make reckless driving illegal\\\" or \\\"governments should enforce wearing seat belts\\\", which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":28,\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I&apos;m still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux)</p><ul><li><p>thank you! I think this new analogy is <strong>great</strong></p></li><li><p>my answer to &quot;Should social dark patterns be illegal?&quot; is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are <em>truly</em> tough. I don&apos;t think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. </p></li><li><p>the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults</p></li><li><p>I still think my viewpoint addresses the &quot;should be illegal&quot; question</p></li><li><p>another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the &quot;hip to eye level&quot; real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!</p></li><li><p>&quot;we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation&quot;</p><ul><li><p>I don&apos;t think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren&apos;t legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they&apos;re just low priority.</p></li><li><p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">one of your examples</a> is playing out in the UK</p></li><li><p>this doesn&apos;t relate to our basic disagreement that &quot;should be illegal&quot; requires dealing with implementation details.</p></li><li><p>there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good &quot;deceptive design&quot; analogies and do have legislation:</p><ul><li><p>package labeling - <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\">nutritional information</a>, misleading phrasing, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\">accurate information</a></p></li><li><p>price fixing</p></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>To say &quot;X should be illegal&quot; is to say &quot;We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.&quot; </p></blockquote><p><em>(attempt to resolve semantic misalignment)</em> This is our basic disagreement on <em>this </em>question, the rest are details and related disagreements. It actually means, &quot;the effects are so bad, by whatever guidelines, that we should <em>consider </em>legislation&quot;. Get it in the pipeline. Talk about it. This is the first step in a basic filtration of all &quot;bad&quot; things to take them further.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics</p></blockquote><p>The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.</p></blockquote><p>I think that the <em>desire</em> for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.</p><blockquote><p>demonstrate that such a thing is possible</p></blockquote><p>A wide variety of &quot;user first&quot; regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,</p><ul><li><p>all of GDPR and data privacy</p></li><li><p>the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed</p><ul><li><p>cookie usage in general has been cut back upon</p></li></ul></li><li><p>apps prompting you for permission usage</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot;</p></blockquote><p>I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying &quot;governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal&quot; then I think it would match your example.</p><p>The full analogy to me would overlap like this:</p><ul><li><p>car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding</p></li><li><p>reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration</p></li><li><p>seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions</p></li></ul><p>What I&apos;m saying is more like &quot;governments should make reckless driving illegal&quot; or &quot;governments should enforce wearing seat belts&quot;, which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.</p><p></p><hr><p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-08-09T17:45:06.763Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I'm still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux. I'll work to consolidate both this and my vp.)\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"thank you! I think this new analogy is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"great\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"my answer to \\\"Should social dark patterns be illegal?\\\" is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"truly\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tough. I don't think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I still think my viewpoint addresses the \\\"should be illegal\\\" question\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the \\\"hip to eye level\\\" real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren't legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they're just low priority.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"one of your examples\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" is playing out in the UK\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"this doesn't relate to our basic disagreement that \\\"should be illegal\\\" requires dealing with implementation details.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good \\\"deceptive design\\\" analogies and do have legislation:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"package labeling - \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"nutritional information\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", misleading phrasing, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"accurate information\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"price fixing\"}]}]}]}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"X should be illegal\\\" is to say \\\"We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.\\\" \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"(attempt to resolve semantic misalignment)\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" This is our basic disagreement on \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"this \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"question, the rest are details and related disagreements. It actually means, \\\"the effects are so bad, by whatever guidelines, that we should \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"consider \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"legislation\\\". Get it in the pipeline. Talk about it. This is the first step in a basic filtration of all \\\"bad\\\" things to take them further.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"desire\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"demonstrate that such a thing is possible\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A wide variety of \\\"user first\\\" regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"all of GDPR and data privacy\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cookie usage in general has been cut back upon\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"apps prompting you for permission usage\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent all car accidents.\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying \\\"governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal\\\" then I think it would match your example.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The full analogy to me would overlap like this:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I'm saying is more like \\\"governments should make reckless driving illegal\\\" or \\\"governments should enforce wearing seat belts\\\", which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think we'll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it's more important here to firmly agree on whether they're bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it'll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we'll be back to square one.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you're describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the \\\"floor is tilted\\\"\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"industry vs government\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":28,\"textContent\":\"individuals vs systems\",\"users\":\"\"}}]}]}]}]}","no_comment":null,"htmlText":"<p>(disclaimer: this is from a quick pass and I&apos;m still looking at the new viewpoint, so things are in flux. I&apos;ll work to consolidate both this and my vp.)</p><ul><li><p>thank you! I think this new analogy is <strong>great</strong></p></li><li><p>my answer to &quot;Should social dark patterns be illegal?&quot; is no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are <em>truly</em> tough. I don&apos;t think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. </p></li><li><p>the difference between this question and the new analogy is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults</p></li><li><p>I still think my viewpoint addresses the &quot;should be illegal&quot; question</p></li><li><p>another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the &quot;hip to eye level&quot; real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!</p></li><li><p>&quot;we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation&quot;</p><ul><li><p>I don&apos;t think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren&apos;t legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they&apos;re just low priority.</p></li><li><p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">one of your examples</a> is playing out in the UK</p></li><li><p>this doesn&apos;t relate to our basic disagreement that &quot;should be illegal&quot; requires dealing with implementation details.</p></li><li><p>there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good &quot;deceptive design&quot; analogies and do have legislation:</p><ul><li><p>package labeling - <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\">nutritional information</a>, misleading phrasing, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\">accurate information</a></p></li><li><p>price fixing</p></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>To say &quot;X should be illegal&quot; is to say &quot;We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.&quot; </p></blockquote><p><em>(attempt to resolve semantic misalignment)</em> This is our basic disagreement on <em>this </em>question, the rest are details and related disagreements. It actually means, &quot;the effects are so bad, by whatever guidelines, that we should <em>consider </em>legislation&quot;. Get it in the pipeline. Talk about it. This is the first step in a basic filtration of all &quot;bad&quot; things to take them further.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>...sense a redundancy for you to go to generalizations while I want to go to specifics</p></blockquote><p>The suggestion of these two UQs was actually prompted by ideas you mentioned in your VP and I imagine are areas where we could disagree more productively. I am convinced that the the specifics you want to dive into are irrelevant to this question and that there is actually more meaningful disagreements.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>the question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.</p></blockquote><p>I think that the <em>desire</em> for illegality does not. We should first align and agree on what should happen then discuss how it might happen.</p><blockquote><p>demonstrate that such a thing is possible</p></blockquote><p>A wide variety of &quot;user first&quot; regulations have been enacted in recent years that I think are good examples of this! For example,</p><ul><li><p>all of GDPR and data privacy</p></li><li><p>the prompt you see for setting cookie preferences was previously not needed</p><ul><li><p>cookie usage in general has been cut back upon</p></li></ul></li><li><p>apps prompting you for permission usage</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent all car accidents.&quot;</p></blockquote><p>I think your analogy is a bit off. Car accidents are the main negative outcome of driving. Reckless driving (speeding, tailgating, not signalling etc.) and car issues are some causes of this outcome. If I were saying &quot;governments should make negative outcomes of internet use illegal&quot; then I think it would match your example.</p><p>The full analogy to me would overlap like this:</p><ul><li><p>car accidents = agreeing to contracts/terms-of-service that have serious and/or hidden implications, being tracked, buying something from a disguised post that was actually an ad, falling down opaque content suggestion pipelines, the mental fraying that occurs from all of the preceding</p></li><li><p>reckless driving = content/app providers doing whatever they please to get your attention with access to the lowest level instincts of people (e.g. noise, physical sensation through vibration</p></li><li><p>seat belts = built-in measures such as highlighting ads, phone usage reports, prompting for permissions</p></li></ul><p>What I&apos;m saying is more like &quot;governments should make reckless driving illegal&quot; or &quot;governments should enforce wearing seat belts&quot;, which are questions unto themselves independent of the imperfect enforcement.</p><p></p><hr><p>I think we&apos;ll consistently disagree about such scopes, but I think that it&apos;s more important here to firmly agree on whether they&apos;re bad (and avoidable and detestable and necessary etc.) before answering the follow up question of the implementation details. Maybe we can find a common language to highlight this split? Or, it&apos;ll naturally arise and get sorted out based on our own interest!</p><p>I&apos;m not as interested in the implementation details on this question, but the two quotes below might be fruitful:</p><blockquote><p>One thing that would likely happen in reality is that as soon as any legislation is written, it will make certain boundaries clear. Then the sleazy internet folks will just create new versions of patterns that skirt these clear lines and we&apos;ll be back to square one.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>it would not be back to square one, but maybe square 2! What you&apos;re describing is, to me, a cycle of industry innovation and regulation that slowly moves things forward</p></li></ul><p></p><blockquote><p>the more we foster smart, skeptical consumers the better for everyone.</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>yes, true, but there is collateral damage during the time it takes to educate. Then, I think this ignores how much of an imbalance there is between industry and the individual. Most of us will flow towards wherever the &quot;floor is tilted&quot;</p></li></ul><p>I see two good jump-off underlying questions to start:</p><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"industry vs government\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><exu-link questionId=\"28\" textContent=\"individuals vs systems\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p></li></ul>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-12-20T22:35:00.331Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Ty for the viewpoint! I was reminded because of the similarities between this and @Stephen's recent publication.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!\"}]}]}","no_comment":false,"htmlText":"<p>Ty for the viewpoint! I was reminded because of the similarities between this and @Stephen&apos;s recent publication.</p><p>In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!</p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-12-29T18:15:02.181Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, your\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It aims to get alignment on 1) \\\"are <dark patterns> bad, in general?\\\" and 2) \\\"do they create such \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"unfair\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"circumstances\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for people that we'd like to avoid them, broadly?\\\".\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But we can completely agree both those things and still vehemently disagree that they should illegal.\"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bad vs. Illegal\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here are some inter-related questions:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does X always cause harm?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Would it be better for society if X were avoided?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Group all of those under \\\"X Bad\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are \\\"X Bad\\\" questions. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But the question at the top of this screen is not an \\\"X Bad\\\" question. It is a \\\"What should we do about X?\\\" question. There are many things that are bad where we don't instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To say \\\"X should be illegal\\\" is to say \\\"We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider \\\"bad\\\"? No we do not. So one might ask what guidelines help us determine what sorts of \\\"bad\\\" justify such legislation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Potential Negative Impacts of Legislation \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are many potential negative consequences to introducing \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"new legislation on business.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal \\\"traps\\\", the less individuals feel free to experiment.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may create \\\"soft citizens\\\" who look to the government to \\\"protect\\\" them from \\\"badness\\\", as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Solving \\\"badness\\\" with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Social Dark Pattern Analogy\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. \\\"Yeah, I'd really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?\\\" But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would call that a social dark pattern. Let's apply the \\\"X Bad\\\" questions above.\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it causes harm. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it always causes harm.  \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect you agree with all that. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So. Should social dark patterns be illegal?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Well the first question that comes to my mind is \\\"how the hell would make that happen?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can't. I know this is an example of badness that can't be legislated away. So the question of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of X requires not just \\\"X Bad\\\" but also \\\"Legislation feasible\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Grocery Analogies\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that \\\"impulse\\\" items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn't need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It's also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child's eyes will be when riding along in the cart.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All of these techniques are \\\"gross\\\" at some level. Again, \\\"X Bad\\\". But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"heading\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"level\":5},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Bottom Line\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You can't really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I'm not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying \\\"Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.\\\" \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So if you really want to address \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"illegality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. \"}]}]}","no_comment":false,"htmlText":"<p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, your<strong> Clarifications</strong> are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:</p><blockquote><p>It aims to get alignment on 1) &quot;are &lt;dark patterns&gt; bad, in general?&quot; and 2) &quot;do they create such <strong>unfair</strong> <strong>circumstances</strong> for people that we&apos;d like to avoid them, broadly?&quot;.</p></blockquote><p>But we can completely agree both those things and still vehemently disagree that they should illegal.</p><h5>Bad vs. Illegal</h5><p>Here are some inter-related questions:</p><ul><li><p>Does X cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does X always cause harm?</p></li><li><p>Does the harm done by X outweigh any good derived from X?</p></li><li><p>Would it be better for society if X were avoided?</p></li></ul><p>Group all of those under &quot;X Bad&quot;.</p><p>Both questions you identified under your Clarifications heading are &quot;X Bad&quot; questions. </p><p>But the question at the top of this screen is not an &quot;X Bad&quot; question. It is a &quot;What should we do about X?&quot; question. There are many things that are bad where we don&apos;t instantly respond by trying to make them illegal.  </p><p>To say &quot;X should be illegal&quot; is to say &quot;We should pass and then enforce legislation that imposes a penalty on anyone that does X.&quot; </p><p>Do we attempt to do this for anything we consider &quot;bad&quot;? No we do not. So one might ask what guidelines help us determine what sorts of &quot;bad&quot; justify such legislation. </p><h5>Potential Negative Impacts of Legislation </h5><p>There are many potential negative consequences to introducing <em>any </em>new legislation on business.</p><ul><li><p>It may become harder to keep track of what is legal, making it harder to do business.</p></li><li><p>It may funnel more resources and more power to a centralized authority, thereby increasing likelihood of corruption. Such corruption includes regulatory capture, selective prosecution, extortion, etc.</p></li><li><p>It may favor large, established actors over small, new ones, because large established actors can afford the lobbyists to craft legislation and the lawyers to avoid running afoul of it, where small newcomers cannot.</p></li><li><p>It may chill innovation. The more the world is full of legal &quot;traps&quot;, the less individuals feel free to experiment.</p></li><li><p>It may create &quot;soft citizens&quot; who look to the government to &quot;protect&quot; them from &quot;badness&quot;, as a child is protected by his parents. As opposed to strong, independent, critically-thinking adult citizens. </p></li></ul><p>Solving &quot;badness&quot; with illegality is not a panacea. It is often a false solution that ends up ironically empowering the worst actors in society. </p><h5>Social Dark Pattern Analogy</h5><p>Some men may act romantically toward women because they are pursuing sex. In so doing, they may mislead women by feigning certain characteristics and intentions that they suspect will be desirable. They might engage in conversations about the future that are less than honest. &quot;Yeah, I&apos;d really love to have kids. Just looking for the right person to really settle down with long-term, you know what I mean?&quot; But once they get what they want, they notch up the win and move on.</p><p>I would call that a social dark pattern. Let&apos;s apply the &quot;X Bad&quot; questions above.</p><ul><li><p>I think it causes harm. </p></li><li><p>I think it always causes harm.  </p></li><li><p>I think the harm it does outweighs any good that it does. </p></li><li><p>I think it would be better for society if that were avoided. </p></li></ul><p>I suspect you agree with all that. </p><p>So. Should social dark patterns be illegal?</p><p>Well the first question that comes to my mind is &quot;how the hell would make that happen?&quot;.</p><p>If you could show me a solid implementation, I would consider this, because the harm is real and it sucks. But I know you can&apos;t. I know this is an example of badness that can&apos;t be legislated away. So the question of <em>illegality </em>of X requires not just &quot;X Bad&quot; but also &quot;Legislation feasible&quot;. </p><h5>Grocery Analogies</h5><p>Here&apos;s are a few more quick analogies that keep things in the commercial realm. Grocery stores have been known to lay out their store in such a way that encourages spending. A well-known example is that &quot;impulse&quot; items placed where people are likely to be waiting in line. These tend to be high-profit items that a consumer probably doesn&apos;t need (candy bars, etc) and would probably never have purchased otherwise. Less well known is that product placement planners often put high-frequency purchases in the rear of the store so that consumers are more likely to see lots of (unneeded) products advertised along the way. It&apos;s also been noted that cartoon-advertised sugar cereals are lined up right where the young child&apos;s eyes will be when riding along in the cart.</p><p>All of these techniques are &quot;gross&quot; at some level. Again, &quot;X Bad&quot;. But again, we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation. </p><h5>Bottom Line</h5><p>You can&apos;t really get away with ignoring implementation details on this question. The question calls for illegality, which implies workable legislation.  I&apos;m not saying that every last detail is needed, but it is a necessary requirement to provide enough details to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Without that, this is no better than saying &quot;Government should prevent men from dishonestly leading women on for sex.&quot; </p><p>So if you really want to address <em>illegality</em>, I think it would be helpful and instructive for you to select a single dark pattern and propose the outlines of the legislation you would favor. </p>"},{"pub_ts":"2023-12-29T19:12:57.168Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, your\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It aims to get alignment on 1) \\\"are <dark patterns> bad, in general?\\\" and 2) \\\"do they create such \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"unfair\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"circumstances\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for people that we'd like to avoid them, broadly?\\\".\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But we can completely agree on both those things and still vehemently disagree on the illegality, which is the question at hand. (See my Explanation for more on this.)\"}]}]}","no_comment":false,"htmlText":"<p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, your<strong> Clarifications</strong> are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:</p><blockquote><p>It aims to get alignment on 1) &quot;are &lt;dark patterns&gt; bad, in general?&quot; and 2) &quot;do they create such <strong>unfair</strong> <strong>circumstances</strong> for people that we&apos;d like to avoid them, broadly?&quot;.</p></blockquote><p>But we can completely agree on both those things and still vehemently disagree on the illegality, which is the question at hand. (See my Explanation for more on this.)</p>"},{"pub_ts":"2024-01-06T02:16:22.026Z","question_id":17,"user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Ty for the viewpoint!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It is true that regulation is often co-opted by industries, especially when those industries have monopolies. This defect of current regulatory efforts, particularly in the US, should not be mistaken for a built-in defect, but rather a hint at how strong private interests are.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Regulation against Big Tech is not the perfect solution, but in a world where 1) there is active harm being done and 2) the monopolies are entrenched enough to last for the foreseeable future, \\\"buyer beware\\\" is not enough.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The line between \\\"creative marketing\\\" and \\\"dark patterns\\\" is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"not\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" that fuzzy.\"}]}]}","no_comment":false,"htmlText":"<p>Ty for the viewpoint!</p><p>It is true that regulation is often co-opted by industries, especially when those industries have monopolies. This defect of current regulatory efforts, particularly in the US, should not be mistaken for a built-in defect, but rather a hint at how strong private interests are.</p><p>Regulation against Big Tech is not the perfect solution, but in a world where 1) there is active harm being done and 2) the monopolies are entrenched enough to last for the foreseeable future, &quot;buyer beware&quot; is not enough.</p><p>The line between &quot;creative marketing&quot; and &quot;dark patterns&quot; is <strong>not</strong> that fuzzy.</p>"},{"pub_ts":"2024-01-06T18:12:01.572Z","question_id":17,"user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","other_user_handle":null,"comment":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fundamentally, the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Clarifications\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" in your Viewpoint are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It aims to get alignment on 1) \\\"are <dark patterns> bad, in general?\\\" and 2) \\\"do they create such \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"unfair\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"circumstances\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for people that we'd like to avoid them, broadly?\\\".\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But we can completely agree on both those things and still vehemently disagree on the illegality, which is the question at hand. (See my Explanation for more on this.)\"}]}]}","no_comment":false,"htmlText":"<p><em>Aside: It would have been helpful to me for your Clarifications to lead your explanation.</em></p><p>Fundamentally, the <strong>Clarifications</strong> in your Viewpoint are out of alignment with the wording of the question. You write:</p><blockquote><p>It aims to get alignment on 1) &quot;are &lt;dark patterns&gt; bad, in general?&quot; and 2) &quot;do they create such <strong>unfair</strong> <strong>circumstances</strong> for people that we&apos;d like to avoid them, broadly?&quot;.</p></blockquote><p>But we can completely agree on both those things and still vehemently disagree on the illegality, which is the question at hand. (See my Explanation for more on this.)</p>"}],"thread_messages":[{"title":"Should social dark patterns be illegal?","lem_id":11,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:48:09.948Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"truly\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tough. I don't think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. \"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"the difference between this question and the grocery analogy (see other LEM) is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults\"}]}]}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>...no because they deal with a realm of social interaction that are particularly tricky. We have encoded some of them into law (e.g. consent) and they are <em>truly</em> tough. I don&apos;t think it comes down to implementation details of the laws. </p><ul><li><p>the difference between this question and the grocery analogy (see other LEM) is that commerce is different than romance. In short, we naturally protect rights of consumers from the imbalanced interaction of a purchase compared to the social interactions of two consenting adults</p></li></ul>"},{"title":"Should social dark patterns be illegal?","lem_id":11,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:48:09.951Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The only basis you are giving for your claim here is that the realm of social interaction is \\\"particularly tricky\\\", but you don't say why.  I've challenged you to drill into that in another LEM.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25, 7:55pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think there's anything here that we aren't engaging on elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong or join me in closing this one out.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>The only basis you are giving for your claim here is that the realm of social interaction is &quot;particularly tricky&quot;, but you don&apos;t say why.  I&apos;ve challenged you to drill into that in another LEM.</p><p><strong>11/25, 7:55pm</strong></p><p>I don&apos;t think there&apos;s anything here that we aren&apos;t engaging on elsewhere. Correct me if I&apos;m wrong or join me in closing this one out.</p>"},{"title":"grocery analogy","lem_id":12,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:49:16.534Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the \\\"crime\\\" and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren't legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they're just low priority.\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Misc:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"one of your examples\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" is playing out in the UK\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good \\\"deceptive design\\\" analogies and do have legislation:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"package labeling - \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"nutritional information\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", misleading phrasing, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"accurate information\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"price fixing\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the \\\"hip to eye level\\\" real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!\"}]}]}]}]}","htmlText":"<blockquote><p>we do not legislate against these things for a lot of reasons such as difficulty actually defining the &quot;crime&quot; and unintended consequences such as runaway regulation</p></blockquote><ul><li><p>I don&apos;t think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren&apos;t legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they&apos;re just low priority.</p></li></ul><p>Misc:</p><ul><li><p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">one of your examples</a> is playing out in the UK</p></li><li><p>there are a variety of grocery store examples that do have pretty good &quot;deceptive design&quot; analogies and do have legislation:</p><ul><li><p>package labeling - <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-menu-labelling-requirements-regulated-food-service-premises-ontario/overview-requirements-legislation\">nutritional information</a>, misleading phrasing, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/labelling/prepackaged-non-food-consumer-products/packaging-and-labelling-requirements\">accurate information</a></p></li><li><p>price fixing</p></li></ul></li><li><p>another fun grocery store phenomenon is that the &quot;hip to eye level&quot; real estate is more expensive and companies actually bargain for their spot on the shelf!</p></li></ul>"},{"title":"grocery analogy","lem_id":12,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:49:16.537Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think this is a classic \\\"worldview\\\" situation playing out.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I can find so many things to object to, just in what you wrote here. As an exercise, I'll call some out...\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren't legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they're just low priority.\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I didn't claim that they were \\\"top reasons\\\"\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The implication (intentional or not) that if we had enough resources we could effectively regulate more things just increases my desire to look at specifics. It feels like a friend telling me he has some failproof investment strategies. I say \\\"then why haven't you made yourself rich yet?\\\" and he says \\\"I haven't had the time to apply them\\\".\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Misc:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"one of your examples\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" is playing out in the UK\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That looks like a total disaster and a great example of excessive regulation.  \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"underline\"}],\"text\":\"I dare you to read the whole thing. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you were willing to engage me on whether that legislation will result in more harm than good, I'm here for it.\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The larger point is that were are in extremely generalized territory, which makes so many things fair game to throw into the mix that there is no hope of focus.  This is exacerbated by your \\\"Misc\\\" thing.  When you put a list of related thoughts, each one is a potential rabbit hole.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So what pattern is playing out here? We are both just popping off thoughts are generated from our worldviews and failing to nail down any specifics to really engage on. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't think this platform is particularly better for that than other platforms. I think it \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"could\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" be a lot better at running down specific claims. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25 9:12\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I agree with your comment in the meta-lem lem that this can be abandoned. Nothing left here worth engaging on that isn't already someplace else.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I think this is a classic &quot;worldview&quot; situation playing out.</p><p>I can find so many things to object to, just in what you wrote here. As an exercise, I&apos;ll call some out...</p><blockquote><ul><li><p>I don&apos;t think these are even close to the top reasons that such things aren&apos;t legislated against. My ignorant guess would be rather be a general lack of resources and that they&apos;re just low priority.</p></li></ul></blockquote><ul><li><p>I didn&apos;t claim that they were &quot;top reasons&quot;</p></li><li><p>The implication (intentional or not) that if we had enough resources we could effectively regulate more things just increases my desire to look at specifics. It feels like a friend telling me he has some failproof investment strategies. I say &quot;then why haven&apos;t you made yourself rich yet?&quot; and he says &quot;I haven&apos;t had the time to apply them&quot;.</p></li></ul><blockquote><p>Misc:</p><ul><li><p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">one of your examples</a> is playing out in the UK</p></li></ul></blockquote><ul><li><p>That looks like a total disaster and a great example of excessive regulation.  <u><strong>I dare you to read the whole thing. </strong></u> </p></li><li><p>If you were willing to engage me on whether that legislation will result in more harm than good, I&apos;m here for it.</p></li></ul><p>The larger point is that were are in extremely generalized territory, which makes so many things fair game to throw into the mix that there is no hope of focus.  This is exacerbated by your &quot;Misc&quot; thing.  When you put a list of related thoughts, each one is a potential rabbit hole.</p><p>So what pattern is playing out here? We are both just popping off thoughts are generated from our worldviews and failing to nail down any specifics to really engage on. </p><p>I don&apos;t think this platform is particularly better for that than other platforms. I think it <em>could</em> be a lot better at running down specific claims. </p><p><strong>11/25 9:12</strong></p><p>I agree with your comment in the meta-lem lem that this can be abandoned. Nothing left here worth engaging on that isn&apos;t already someplace else.</p>"},{"title":"\"\"should be illegal\"\" phrasing","lem_id":13,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:50:07.671Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think this is a fine subjective question that doesn't \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"need\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" to deal with workable legislation. I agree that a good answer would include examples, but hoping to better understand the issue with the sentiment of \\\"xyz should be legislated against\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Someone arguing \\\"yes\\\" will provide examples that are more egregious and for which legislation is easier to envision. Someone arguing \\\"no\\\" will provide examples that do the opposite. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm hoping that it will just make it \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"easier\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", not \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"too\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" easy, to talk past each other. The territory is bigger, but even identifying examples as you describe above is a pretty great outcome. It's possible that our instincts to argue or be right or come to a conclusion won't be as satisfied, but that's still progress!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I think this is a fine subjective question that doesn&apos;t <em>need</em> to deal with workable legislation. I agree that a good answer would include examples, but hoping to better understand the issue with the sentiment of &quot;xyz should be legislated against&quot;.</p><hr><blockquote><p>Someone arguing &quot;yes&quot; will provide examples that are more egregious and for which legislation is easier to envision. Someone arguing &quot;no&quot; will provide examples that do the opposite. </p></blockquote><p>I&apos;m hoping that it will just make it <em>easier</em>, not <em>too</em> easy, to talk past each other. The territory is bigger, but even identifying examples as you describe above is a pretty great outcome. It&apos;s possible that our instincts to argue or be right or come to a conclusion won&apos;t be as satisfied, but that&apos;s still progress!</p>"},{"title":"\"\"should be illegal\"\" phrasing","lem_id":13,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:50:07.674Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"a good answer would include examples\\\" points to my problem with this subject. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Someone arguing \\\"yes\\\" will provide examples that are more egregious and for which legislation is easier to envision. Someone arguing \\\"no\\\" will provide examples that do the opposite. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This makes it way too easy to talk past each other. The territory is too big. If you want engagment, you need to shrink the territory.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25 7:59pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think this can be closed out.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>&quot;a good answer would include examples&quot; points to my problem with this subject. </p><p>Someone arguing &quot;yes&quot; will provide examples that are more egregious and for which legislation is easier to envision. Someone arguing &quot;no&quot; will provide examples that do the opposite. </p><p>This makes it way too easy to talk past each other. The territory is too big. If you want engagment, you need to shrink the territory.</p><p><strong>11/25 7:59pm</strong></p><p>I think this can be closed out.</p>"},{"title":"deceptive design examples","lem_id":14,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:53:11.869Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"After a browse through \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"this\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", which are less/more vague and which are less/more objectionable? I did a quick ranking with some criteria to help guide me (level of disgust, level of deceit, economic impact, ability to legislate):\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Very disgusting, deceitful and easier to legislate:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Disguised Ads\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Hidden Costs\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Hidden Subscription\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Sneaking\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Hard to Cancel\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Very disgusting & deceitful, but harder to legislate:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fake Scarcity\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fake Social Proof\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fake Urgency\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Less disgusting & deceitful, easier to legislate\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Visual Interference\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Forced Action\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Preselection\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Confirm Shaming\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Less disgusting & deceitful, harder to legislate\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Comparison Prevention\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Nagging\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Obstruction\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Trick Wording\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"2: 11-26, 3:51pm\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Is this list is not the beginning of diving into specifics? It's a response your comments that (1) the patterns are ill-defined and (2) there's high variation amongst how \\\"bad\\\" they even are. By providing this list I'd hoped to narrow down better examples to choose underlying questions.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"4: 26-11-2023, 7:59pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Still, I feel like we started at the planet level, and you are starting to sketch out continents, but we need to be at the village level of specificity. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like this.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Good with the sequence and timing, but it's a biiiit annoying, so we should get it built in soon.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<blockquote><p>some of these are a big vague and not all of them are equally objectionable</p></blockquote><p>After a browse through <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/types\">this</a>, which are less/more vague and which are less/more objectionable? I did a quick ranking with some criteria to help guide me (level of disgust, level of deceit, economic impact, ability to legislate):</p><p><strong>Very disgusting, deceitful and easier to legislate:</strong></p><ul><li><p>Disguised Ads</p></li><li><p>Hidden Costs</p></li><li><p>Hidden Subscription</p></li><li><p>Sneaking</p></li><li><p>Hard to Cancel</p></li></ul><p></p><p><strong>Very disgusting &amp; deceitful, but harder to legislate:</strong></p><ul><li><p>Fake Scarcity</p></li><li><p>Fake Social Proof</p></li><li><p>Fake Urgency</p></li></ul><p></p><p><strong>Less disgusting &amp; deceitful, easier to legislate</strong></p><ul><li><p>Visual Interference</p></li><li><p>Forced Action</p></li><li><p>Preselection</p></li><li><p>Confirm Shaming</p></li></ul><p></p><p><strong>Less disgusting &amp; deceitful, harder to legislate</strong></p><ul><li><p>Comparison Prevention</p></li><li><p>Nagging</p></li><li><p>Obstruction</p></li><li><p>Trick Wording</p></li></ul><p></p><p><strong>2: 11-26, 3:51pm</strong><br></p><p>Is this list is not the beginning of diving into specifics? It&apos;s a response your comments that (1) the patterns are ill-defined and (2) there&apos;s high variation amongst how &quot;bad&quot; they even are. By providing this list I&apos;d hoped to narrow down better examples to choose underlying questions.</p><p></p><p><strong>4: 26-11-2023, 7:59pm</strong></p><blockquote><p>Still, I feel like we started at the planet level, and you are starting to sketch out continents, but we need to be at the village level of specificity. </p></blockquote><p>I like this.</p><p>Good with the sequence and timing, but it&apos;s a biiiit annoying, so we should get it built in soon.</p>"},{"title":"deceptive design examples","lem_id":14,"created_at":"2023-11-17T23:53:11.871Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"1: 11/25, 7pm-ish\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Why would I weigh in?  My explanation makes clear (I hope) that I find this topic too generalized to support fruitful engagement. Your breakdown in this LEM helps confirm that for me. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I wish you would pick one thing you think should be illegal and I'd probably engage you on that.\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Until then, I'm stuck on \\\"there's no way I can support a call to make a giant bucket of ill defined things illegal\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"3: 11/26 5:36pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Ah!!! that makes sense. Sorry, I did not get the context/goal, but I get it now.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Still, I feel like we started at the planet level, and you are starting to sketch out continents, but we need to be at the village level of specificity. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Why not just jump all the way down to a single dark pattern that you would like to see made illegal (maybe pick from your \\\"very disgusting, decitful and easier to legislate\\\" group) and let's go from there.  One single, \\\"easiest\\\" case from your side, and I'll be happy to dive into it with you. Make sense?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"PS: since these don't line up like texts, I'm putting a sequence on each entry (leaving room for you to do the same with yours - your 11/26, 3:51 entry would be \\\"2\\\") to make it easier to read in sequence. Hope that makes sense. \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>1: 11/25, 7pm-ish</strong></p><p>Why would I weigh in?  My explanation makes clear (I hope) that I find this topic too generalized to support fruitful engagement. Your breakdown in this LEM helps confirm that for me. </p><p>I wish you would pick one thing you think should be illegal and I&apos;d probably engage you on that.<br>Until then, I&apos;m stuck on &quot;there&apos;s no way I can support a call to make a giant bucket of ill defined things illegal&quot;.</p><p><strong>3: 11/26 5:36pm</strong></p><p>Ah!!! that makes sense. Sorry, I did not get the context/goal, but I get it now.</p><p>Still, I feel like we started at the planet level, and you are starting to sketch out continents, but we need to be at the village level of specificity. </p><p>Why not just jump all the way down to a single dark pattern that you would like to see made illegal (maybe pick from your &quot;very disgusting, decitful and easier to legislate&quot; group) and let&apos;s go from there.  One single, &quot;easiest&quot; case from your side, and I&apos;ll be happy to dive into it with you. Make sense?</p><p>PS: since these don&apos;t line up like texts, I&apos;m putting a sequence on each entry (leaving room for you to do the same with yours - your 11/26, 3:51 entry would be &quot;2&quot;) to make it easier to read in sequence. Hope that makes sense. </p>"},{"title":"Are social interactions more \"tricky\" than commerce interactions in a way that makes govt regulation less workable?","lem_id":22,"created_at":"2023-11-24T17:35:46.252Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'd like to know how/why? Is it about power differential? Complexity? Information asymmetry? Other things?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"<This should definitely be happening in chat format!>\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25, 7-ish ET\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Analogies almost never make for effective arguments because the other side can always just point to differences (if there weren't any, it wouldn't be an analogy), and say \\\"look, it's different!\\\". And then the debate shifts to whether or not the differences matter for the application of the analogy. I like your \\\"this analogy isn't apt\\\" language. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't know if there's fruitful engagement ahead here. If there is, I think it would require us to get more specific (shocker). For example, take a guy talking about a long-term future with a date when his only real interest is short-term, compared to a grocer putting high-calorie, low-nutritional impulse items at the cash registers. I think that both are sleazy but wouldn't want to legislate against either one.   \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you want to engage on that, we should create a different LEM for it and close this one out?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I&apos;d like to know how/why? Is it about power differential? Complexity? Information asymmetry? Other things?</p><p>&lt;This should definitely be happening in chat format!&gt;</p><p><strong>11/25, 7-ish ET</strong></p><p>Analogies almost never make for effective arguments because the other side can always just point to differences (if there weren&apos;t any, it wouldn&apos;t be an analogy), and say &quot;look, it&apos;s different!&quot;. And then the debate shifts to whether or not the differences matter for the application of the analogy. I like your &quot;this analogy isn&apos;t apt&quot; language. </p><p>I don&apos;t know if there&apos;s fruitful engagement ahead here. If there is, I think it would require us to get more specific (shocker). For example, take a guy talking about a long-term future with a date when his only real interest is short-term, compared to a grocer putting high-calorie, low-nutritional impulse items at the cash registers. I think that both are sleazy but wouldn&apos;t want to legislate against either one.   </p><p>If you want to engage on that, we should create a different LEM for it and close this one out?</p>"},{"title":"Are social interactions more \"tricky\" than commerce interactions in a way that makes govt regulation less workable?","lem_id":22,"created_at":"2023-11-24T17:35:46.254Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Side Note: \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"as the person who brought up this analogy, I think there's a higher burden on you to define why they are the same because I think it helps avoid \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=gish+gallop\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"gish gallop\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", but I will also try.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The thing that didn't resonate when you mentioned social dark patterns was that social interactions & contracts are vague, subtle, fickle, impulsive and often undefined. We often don't even know what happened or why or what the purpose is! Try to explain why things are funny or why they're offensive or why you were giving space in one scenario but being cold and aloof in another.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Commercial contracts, on the other hand, are much more obvious, well-defined and transactional.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"My instinct and thought processes on this are \\\"the analogy is just not apt\\\". Maybe starting just with the above is good, but also curious why you think they're similar.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11-26, 12pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Not opposed, but not too compelling. Happy to close.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><em>Side Note: </em>as the person who brought up this analogy, I think there&apos;s a higher burden on you to define why they are the same because I think it helps avoid <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&amp;q=gish+gallop\">gish gallop</a>, but I will also try.</p><p>The thing that didn&apos;t resonate when you mentioned social dark patterns was that social interactions &amp; contracts are vague, subtle, fickle, impulsive and often undefined. We often don&apos;t even know what happened or why or what the purpose is! Try to explain why things are funny or why they&apos;re offensive or why you were giving space in one scenario but being cold and aloof in another.</p><p>Commercial contracts, on the other hand, are much more obvious, well-defined and transactional.</p><p>My instinct and thought processes on this are &quot;the analogy is just not apt&quot;. Maybe starting just with the above is good, but also curious why you think they&apos;re similar.</p><p><strong>11-26, 12pm</strong></p><p>Not opposed, but not too compelling. Happy to close.</p>"},{"title":"Hayek & libertarian worldview","lem_id":23,"created_at":"2023-11-24T18:16:17.003Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Austrian economist and libertarian rock star Friedrich Hayek said: \"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Volume 1)\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This is the \\\"fatal conceit\\\" of most business regulation. It is very easy to imagine that if you get the right, smart, well-meaning people, with the right resources, focused on the task of implementing and enforcing regulations aimed at the right problems, then you will end up with a better overall situation in the end. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But in the real world things are way more complicated than we realize. People are much too adaptive to keep on top of.  The would-be regulators are subject to the same flaws of humanity that cause the \\\"bad\\\" behaviors in the first place. So we get regulatory capture and corruption. We get outdated regulation that nobody has time to adapt and clean up, while more and more regulation piles on to address the unintended consequences of earlier regulation. These and other problems lead to a continuous state where instead of being \\\"victimized\\\" by some questionable practices by some greedy businessmen (which can be pointed to by competitors to whom consumers can switch at any time), we are all overseen by armies of unavoidable bureaucrats, inevitably applying their impossibly complex regulations selectively to reward themselves and their friends and to harm their enemies or those they don't give a shit about (ie: you and me).\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There is no cheap substitute for individual responsibility. We can thrive as a society where laws are few and clear, aimed at fundamental violations of rights (like force and fraud), but where people are otherwise free to try things, some of which lots of us won't like. In that world, reputation matters, long-term integrity is rewarded, innovation thrives, and on average, things get better and better for everyone. In the world where you concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a few, all that eventually matters is who wields that power. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"1: 11/25 8:02pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't know, man. This is tough.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I did seek here to paint a somewhat \\\"worldview level\\\" picture of why I'm\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\" generally\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" skeptical of instincts to solve problems with legislation, especially at a broad, ill defined level (ie, \\\"dark patterns should be illegal\\\").  I tied it to Hayek to sort of give it some credibility and to give you/others a great reference for further study if you were interested.  \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But is that disrupting my ability to engage? I don't see how. To me this \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"is\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" engagement of the question at the highly generalized level. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Is my worldview the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"root \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of my disagreement? I don't think so. I think my worldview causes me to seek specifics. If you say \\\"should we \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"generally \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"make some stuff illegal\\\", I have to say \\\"No, because \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"generally, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"attempts to make things illegal don't work (for general reasons) and tend to have unintended consequences (for general reasons).\\\" What else can I do with such a general topic?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This is why I keep pushing for specifics. If you give me a specific dark pattern that you'd like to make illegal, or better yet a particular framework for legislation to do so, then I can put my worldview to the test. I can see whether or not I can point out the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"specific\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" ways that the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"specific \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"prohibition/legislation won't work and/or what \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"specific\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" unintended consequences we might expect. If my attempt succeeds, it might strengthen my worldview and might even nudge yours in that direction. If it fails, it might weaken mine some and reinforce yours.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I don't really think that worldview disagreements \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"can \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"be productively engaged, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"other than\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" via specifics. Typically, people tend to bounce from worldview debates to specific applications (which they never engage fully) and back to worldview and never make any progress. I'm confident my worldview would hold up to an engagement on specifics, mainly because it was built up from a lot of analysis of specifics over time and has held up to a lot of devil's advocacy, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"but\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" I'm happy to adjust it if I need to. But it's never going to be adjusted by engaging in generalities. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So that's one reason I keep shying away from generalities. The only value I can see for them is as a \\\"collecting place\\\" for specifics (or something like that), but not a place for productive engagement.  I don't think we move the ball at that level. I think that's true no matter what the format of engagement. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I love about the ExU concept is that we can move from generalities to specifics and \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"actually nail down the specifics, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(which is what people never do), which then, ideally, will actually help us strengthen/adjust/adapt (and maybe even converge) our worldviews.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Plus I'm more and more convinced that the format becomes less useful the more generalized the question is. We should probably create an ExU question for that and focus on it, as we seem to continuously disagree on that. (Wait, did we already?)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's a preview of part of my argument: because the territory of general questions is so vast, a truly complete explanation is bound to be huge. Look at it this way. We could create the ExU Question \\\"Is libertarianism a superior political worldview?\\\" David Boaz could say \\\"Yes\\\". His explanation is that 320-page book. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like ExU for focused explorations because they are containable. It is unhelpful to try to argue from worldview to those who do not share your worldview, but I think it is possible to impact worldview over time by engaging successfully on specifics that tend to shape worldview.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm not convinced that this format is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"useless\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" for highly generalized disagreements, but I'm skeptical. I see it as a great forum for nailing down the kinds of things that pop up in worldview-level discussions and don't usually get nailed down. That's both the motivation behind it as well as what I think it is best designed to do.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Sorry for the rambling - this could all use some editing I don't have the brain for right now!  But I think/hope I addressed the main meta question you raised. Did I?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"3: 11/26 5:45.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Since you said you are in the middle of parsing, I'm not going to respond other than creating a new LEM to focus ont he issue of whether there is any value discussing illegality without specifics. \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Austrian economist and libertarian rock star Friedrich Hayek said: </p><blockquote><p>“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”</p><p></p><p>The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Volume 1)</p></blockquote><p>This is the &quot;fatal conceit&quot; of most business regulation. It is very easy to imagine that if you get the right, smart, well-meaning people, with the right resources, focused on the task of implementing and enforcing regulations aimed at the right problems, then you will end up with a better overall situation in the end. </p><p>But in the real world things are way more complicated than we realize. People are much too adaptive to keep on top of.  The would-be regulators are subject to the same flaws of humanity that cause the &quot;bad&quot; behaviors in the first place. So we get regulatory capture and corruption. We get outdated regulation that nobody has time to adapt and clean up, while more and more regulation piles on to address the unintended consequences of earlier regulation. These and other problems lead to a continuous state where instead of being &quot;victimized&quot; by some questionable practices by some greedy businessmen (which can be pointed to by competitors to whom consumers can switch at any time), we are all overseen by armies of unavoidable bureaucrats, inevitably applying their impossibly complex regulations selectively to reward themselves and their friends and to harm their enemies or those they don&apos;t give a shit about (ie: you and me).</p><p>There is no cheap substitute for individual responsibility. We can thrive as a society where laws are few and clear, aimed at fundamental violations of rights (like force and fraud), but where people are otherwise free to try things, some of which lots of us won&apos;t like. In that world, reputation matters, long-term integrity is rewarded, innovation thrives, and on average, things get better and better for everyone. In the world where you concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a few, all that eventually matters is who wields that power. </p><p><strong>1: 11/25 8:02pm</strong></p><p>I don&apos;t know, man. This is tough.</p><p>I did seek here to paint a somewhat &quot;worldview level&quot; picture of why I&apos;m<em> generally</em> skeptical of instincts to solve problems with legislation, especially at a broad, ill defined level (ie, &quot;dark patterns should be illegal&quot;).  I tied it to Hayek to sort of give it some credibility and to give you/others a great reference for further study if you were interested.  </p><p>But is that disrupting my ability to engage? I don&apos;t see how. To me this <em>is</em> engagement of the question at the highly generalized level. </p><p>Is my worldview the <em>root </em>of my disagreement? I don&apos;t think so. I think my worldview causes me to seek specifics. If you say &quot;should we <em>generally </em>make some stuff illegal&quot;, I have to say &quot;No, because <em>generally, </em>attempts to make things illegal don&apos;t work (for general reasons) and tend to have unintended consequences (for general reasons).&quot; What else can I do with such a general topic?</p><p>This is why I keep pushing for specifics. If you give me a specific dark pattern that you&apos;d like to make illegal, or better yet a particular framework for legislation to do so, then I can put my worldview to the test. I can see whether or not I can point out the <em>specific</em> ways that the <em>specific </em>prohibition/legislation won&apos;t work and/or what <em>specific</em> unintended consequences we might expect. If my attempt succeeds, it might strengthen my worldview and might even nudge yours in that direction. If it fails, it might weaken mine some and reinforce yours.</p><p>I don&apos;t really think that worldview disagreements <em>can </em>be productively engaged, <em>other than</em> via specifics. Typically, people tend to bounce from worldview debates to specific applications (which they never engage fully) and back to worldview and never make any progress. I&apos;m confident my worldview would hold up to an engagement on specifics, mainly because it was built up from a lot of analysis of specifics over time and has held up to a lot of devil&apos;s advocacy, <em>but</em> I&apos;m happy to adjust it if I need to. But it&apos;s never going to be adjusted by engaging in generalities. </p><p>So that&apos;s one reason I keep shying away from generalities. The only value I can see for them is as a &quot;collecting place&quot; for specifics (or something like that), but not a place for productive engagement.  I don&apos;t think we move the ball at that level. I think that&apos;s true no matter what the format of engagement. </p><p>What I love about the ExU concept is that we can move from generalities to specifics and <em>actually nail down the specifics, </em>(which is what people never do), which then, ideally, will actually help us strengthen/adjust/adapt (and maybe even converge) our worldviews.</p><p>Plus I&apos;m more and more convinced that the format becomes less useful the more generalized the question is. We should probably create an ExU question for that and focus on it, as we seem to continuously disagree on that. (Wait, did we already?)</p><p>Here&apos;s a preview of part of my argument: because the territory of general questions is so vast, a truly complete explanation is bound to be huge. Look at it this way. We could create the ExU Question &quot;Is libertarianism a superior political worldview?&quot; David Boaz could say &quot;Yes&quot;. His explanation is that 320-page book. </p><p>I like ExU for focused explorations because they are containable. It is unhelpful to try to argue from worldview to those who do not share your worldview, but I think it is possible to impact worldview over time by engaging successfully on specifics that tend to shape worldview.</p><p>I&apos;m not convinced that this format is <em>useless</em> for highly generalized disagreements, but I&apos;m skeptical. I see it as a great forum for nailing down the kinds of things that pop up in worldview-level discussions and don&apos;t usually get nailed down. That&apos;s both the motivation behind it as well as what I think it is best designed to do.</p><p>Sorry for the rambling - this could all use some editing I don&apos;t have the brain for right now!  But I think/hope I addressed the main meta question you raised. Did I?</p><p><strong>3: 11/26 5:45.</strong></p><p>Since you said you are in the middle of parsing, I&apos;m not going to respond other than creating a new LEM to focus ont he issue of whether there is any value discussing illegality without specifics. </p>"},{"title":"Hayek & libertarian worldview","lem_id":23,"created_at":"2023-11-24T18:16:17.006Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yes, free market = good, big government = bad.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'd like to tie this into the meta question of subjective questions, shrinking the territory and talking past one-another.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It seems to me that your world view (i.e. the fundamental belief described in this LEM) disrupts engaging with this question and is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"actually\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" the root of the disagreement. Wouldn't your answer here actually be \\\"100% No\\\" and then point to some more general question about regulations/laws? \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"That's\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" where we could engage, if we wanted, but we also might go \\\"ah yeah, I don't want to do that big thing right now\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It's why I want \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"some \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"world view type questions, or at least to explore them.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In our concept of \\\"purposefully loaded\\\", maybe this question could've used a \\\"assumes you believe in some basic value of regulation\\\". Then you might not want to engage, or you could just poke and prod to add value to others' engagements!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All this to say, this exploration could be viewed as valuable because now we know there's a fundamental disagreement? Were the steps we took to get here valuable or a waste of time? If a world view makes your answer to a question 100% either way, what does that mean?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11-26, 12-pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Sorry for \\\"disrupting ability to engage\\\", which in hindsight sounds like such an arrogant diagnosis :).\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I meant is that we've \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"actually been disagreeing about\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" the underlying question answered by your comment:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"there's no way I can support a call to make a giant bucket of ill defined things illegal\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This wouldn't have been an issue for people who don't have such a strong opposition to regulations in general, who could then still disagree about how bad dark patterns are in general and then specifics.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Also there does seem to be a bit of \\\"stonewalling\\\" (e.g. genuinely confused about \\\"deceptive design examples\\\" lem), though a lot of this has been quite meta so it makes sense.\"}]},{\"type\":\"horizontalRule\"},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In regards to the discussion of feedback loops of information, beliefs and world views: I'm skeptical of your world view on it and think that any model describing changing your mind would include both generalities and specifics. \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"How do we engage on \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"this\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\" disagreement?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" Not sure if there's a question? Closest is the \\\"subjective opinion\\\" one.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Yes, free market = good, big government = bad.</p><p>I&apos;d like to tie this into the meta question of subjective questions, shrinking the territory and talking past one-another.</p><p>It seems to me that your world view (i.e. the fundamental belief described in this LEM) disrupts engaging with this question and is <em>actually</em> the root of the disagreement. Wouldn&apos;t your answer here actually be &quot;100% No&quot; and then point to some more general question about regulations/laws? <em>That&apos;s</em> where we could engage, if we wanted, but we also might go &quot;ah yeah, I don&apos;t want to do that big thing right now&quot;.</p><p>It&apos;s why I want <em>some </em>world view type questions, or at least to explore them.</p><p>In our concept of &quot;purposefully loaded&quot;, maybe this question could&apos;ve used a &quot;assumes you believe in some basic value of regulation&quot;. Then you might not want to engage, or you could just poke and prod to add value to others&apos; engagements!</p><p>All this to say, this exploration could be viewed as valuable because now we know there&apos;s a fundamental disagreement? Were the steps we took to get here valuable or a waste of time? If a world view makes your answer to a question 100% either way, what does that mean?</p><p></p><p><strong>11-26, 12-pm</strong></p><p>Sorry for &quot;disrupting ability to engage&quot;, which in hindsight sounds like such an arrogant diagnosis :).</p><p>What I meant is that we&apos;ve <strong>actually been disagreeing about</strong> the underlying question answered by your comment:</p><blockquote><p>there&apos;s no way I can support a call to make a giant bucket of ill defined things illegal</p></blockquote><p>This wouldn&apos;t have been an issue for people who don&apos;t have such a strong opposition to regulations in general, who could then still disagree about how bad dark patterns are in general and then specifics.</p><p>Also there does seem to be a bit of &quot;stonewalling&quot; (e.g. genuinely confused about &quot;deceptive design examples&quot; lem), though a lot of this has been quite meta so it makes sense.</p><hr><p>In regards to the discussion of feedback loops of information, beliefs and world views: I&apos;m skeptical of your world view on it and think that any model describing changing your mind would include both generalities and specifics. <strong>How do we engage on </strong><em><strong>this</strong></em><strong> disagreement?</strong> Not sure if there&apos;s a question? Closest is the &quot;subjective opinion&quot; one.</p>"},{"title":"UK grocery legislation","lem_id":25,"created_at":"2023-11-25T20:42:19.345Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Could be an underlying question? \\\"Does \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"this legislation\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" cause more harm than good?\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"2: 11-26, 3:51pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Where did I say that? Haven't looked into impacts, but open to it.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"4: 26-11-2023, 8:04pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Ah, gotcha! I'm confused because I don't know what side I'd take since I haven't looked at this specific legislation's impacts yet. It's a different, more specific question to me!. Unless you'd want the question to be more aligned with this one, e.g. \\\"Is this legislation the type of legislation that we should generally make?\\\" \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Could be an underlying question? &quot;Does <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance\">this legislation</a> cause more harm than good?&quot;</p><p><strong>2: 11-26, 3:51pm</strong></p><p>Where did I say that? Haven&apos;t looked into impacts, but open to it.</p><p><strong>4: 26-11-2023, 8:04pm</strong></p><p>Ah, gotcha! I&apos;m confused because I don&apos;t know what side I&apos;d take since I haven&apos;t looked at this specific legislation&apos;s impacts yet. It&apos;s a different, more specific question to me!. Unless you&apos;d want the question to be more aligned with this one, e.g. &quot;Is this legislation the type of legislation that we should generally make?&quot; </p>"},{"title":"UK grocery legislation","lem_id":25,"created_at":"2023-11-25T20:42:19.349Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"1: 11/25, 7:57pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I would engage in that.  Are you saying you would take a firm negative on that? \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"3: 11/26 5:59pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Where did I say that? Haven't looked into impacts, but open to it.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I assume by \\\"that\\\" you mean \\\"that you (Shane) would take a firm negative?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If so, I didn't mean to imply that you said you would. I was asking whether you would. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The reason I was asking is because it felt like you were proposing it as a specific legislation we could engage over (even thought it's not about internet \\\"dark patterns\\\", it fits the general mold of Shane saying that legislation to stop bad commerce practices is good and Paul being skeptical of that.  Since you proposed it as a possible underlying question, I wanted to make sure that you were going to take the opposite side as me before we bothered.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"5: 11/29 1:30pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm noticing/realizing that there is more semantic misalignment going on than I realized!  Closing this one out to consolidate...\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>1: 11/25, 7:57pm</strong></p><p>I would engage in that.  Are you saying you would take a firm negative on that? </p><p><strong>3: 11/26 5:59pm</strong></p><blockquote><p>Where did I say that? Haven&apos;t looked into impacts, but open to it.</p></blockquote><p>I assume by &quot;that&quot; you mean &quot;that you (Shane) would take a firm negative?</p><p>If so, I didn&apos;t mean to imply that you said you would. I was asking whether you would. </p><p>The reason I was asking is because it felt like you were proposing it as a specific legislation we could engage over (even thought it&apos;s not about internet &quot;dark patterns&quot;, it fits the general mold of Shane saying that legislation to stop bad commerce practices is good and Paul being skeptical of that.  Since you proposed it as a possible underlying question, I wanted to make sure that you were going to take the opposite side as me before we bothered.</p><p><strong>5: 11/29 1:30pm</strong></p><p>I&apos;m noticing/realizing that there is more semantic misalignment going on than I realized!  Closing this one out to consolidate...</p>"},{"title":"Table of Contents","lem_id":26,"created_at":"2023-11-25T21:14:51.466Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"meta lem\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"\\\"deceptive design examples\\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" = ongoing: why don't you want to talk about specifics?!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"meta lems \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"= ongoing: discussion of this lem and meta lems in general\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Hayek\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" = ongoing: description of free market vs regulation, is mostly a conversation about world views & questions\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"grocery \\\"dark pattern\\\" legislation\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" = ongoing: a good underlying question that is specific?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"social dark patterns\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" (2) = closed: analogies suck\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"\\\"should be illegal\\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" = closed: mostly meta about this question\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"grocery analogy\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" =closed, a bit of a mess, probably will abandon\"}]}]}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><em>meta lem</em></p><ul><li><p><strong>&quot;deceptive design examples&quot;</strong> = ongoing: why don&apos;t you want to talk about specifics?!</p></li><li><p><strong>meta lems </strong>= ongoing: discussion of this lem and meta lems in general</p></li><li><p><strong>Hayek</strong> = ongoing: description of free market vs regulation, is mostly a conversation about world views &amp; questions</p></li><li><p><strong>grocery &quot;dark pattern&quot; legislation</strong> = ongoing: a good underlying question that is specific?</p></li><li><p><strong>social dark patterns</strong> (2) = closed: analogies suck</p></li><li><p><strong>&quot;should be illegal&quot;</strong> = closed: mostly meta about this question</p></li><li><p><strong>grocery analogy</strong> =closed, a bit of a mess, probably will abandon</p></li></ul>"},{"title":"Table of Contents","lem_id":26,"created_at":"2023-11-25T21:14:51.469Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25 9:03pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I see what you are doing here.  Opened a LEM with my thoughts about meta lems.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'll leave it up to you to adjust this meta lem to include my meta meta lem (or not). :)\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>11/25 9:03pm</strong></p><p>I see what you are doing here.  Opened a LEM with my thoughts about meta lems.</p><p>I&apos;ll leave it up to you to adjust this meta lem to include my meta meta lem (or not). :)</p>"},{"title":"Thoughts on meta lems","lem_id":27,"created_at":"2023-11-26T07:02:34.789Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/25 9:03pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(This is in regards to the \\\"meta lem\\\" lem between us on this Question.)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm concerned about how a meta lem would be kept up to date, and I want to believe it's unnecessary (while I completely get the desire for it as this Question has gotten messy/expansive in the lem department)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'd like to think we can \\\"converse\\\" in each LEM about what, if any remaining purpose a LEM has and whether it can be closed or not, which would include kicking off other LEMS (or maybe new Qs) to deal with parts that are unresolved. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A good guideline being: \"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Is there anything we talked about here that is worth isolating to talk about more?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":\"\",\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Is there anything here that can help me better express my formal Explanation and Response above?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This particular lem (about meta lems) is obviously completely out of context on this Question, but yet I find myself really wanting to engage with you about it but lacking any other obvious home!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think that's fine. We should feel free to LEM about anything we want anywhere we want, and use it as a place to decide whether to expand/move the convo somewhere else before closing it out.  \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>11/25 9:03pm</strong></p><p>(This is in regards to the &quot;meta lem&quot; lem between us on this Question.)</p><p>I&apos;m concerned about how a meta lem would be kept up to date, and I want to believe it&apos;s unnecessary (while I completely get the desire for it as this Question has gotten messy/expansive in the lem department)</p><p>I&apos;d like to think we can &quot;converse&quot; in each LEM about what, if any remaining purpose a LEM has and whether it can be closed or not, which would include kicking off other LEMS (or maybe new Qs) to deal with parts that are unresolved. </p><p>A good guideline being: </p><ul><li><p>Is there anything we talked about here that is worth isolating to talk about more?</p></li><li><p>Is there anything here that can help me better express my formal Explanation and Response above?</p></li></ul><p>This particular lem (about meta lems) is obviously completely out of context on this Question, but yet I find myself really wanting to engage with you about it but lacking any other obvious home!</p><p>I think that&apos;s fine. We should feel free to LEM about anything we want anywhere we want, and use it as a place to decide whether to expand/move the convo somewhere else before closing it out.  </p>"},{"title":"Thoughts on meta lems","lem_id":27,"created_at":"2023-11-26T07:02:34.796Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/26, 3:45pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That particularly \\\"meta lem\\\" should actually just be a feature at the top of this section, cuz this section is just a bloated mess, but I also liked it as a best practice based on the \\\"summarize and repeat back\\\" principle in conversation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yeah, we talked about various guidelines on that call and those sound like a couple good examples.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>11/26, 3:45pm</strong></p><p>That particularly &quot;meta lem&quot; should actually just be a feature at the top of this section, cuz this section is just a bloated mess, but I also liked it as a best practice based on the &quot;summarize and repeat back&quot; principle in conversation.</p><p>Yeah, we talked about various guidelines on that call and those sound like a couple good examples.</p>"},{"title":"Is your libertarian world view answering an \"\"upstream\"\" question about laws?","lem_id":35,"created_at":"2023-11-27T03:52:54.833Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"1: 11/26 5:55.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I created this as an offshoot of the Libertarian Worldview/Hayek LEM. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This to me is the biggest topic we are hung up on, so I'm going to try to focus on it.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"My answer is \\\"No\\\". There is no value in discussing what shouldn't be legal without specifics. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's my reason why:\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the real world, legislators need to pass specific legislation.  It's easy to say \\\"there ought to be a law\\\". It's far more difficult to actually craft an effective law, meaning one that will, once implemented in the real world, have the desired impact without unintended outcomes that outweigh any benefits. This is why I reject engagement at the broad, hypothetical level. If you said, \\\"You ought to create a viral app that will make you a multi-millionaire. Do you agree?\\\" I would say, \\\"well, maybe, if you can tell me how I would do such a thing, in a way that would actually yield the multi-millions and not ruin my life in unexpected ways\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I can totally agree with \\\"dark patterns are bad\\\" and \\\"dark patterns are immoral\\\", and \\\"the people who implement dark patterns should be ashamed of themselves\\\", etc. In the same way I can totally agree with \\\"it would be nice to be a multi-millionaire.\\\" But to say \\\"We should implement X\\\" without specifics about what X is, is to me just noise\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"3: 11/29 1:34pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Halleluiah! I think I just really understood what's happening here for the first time.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Not only that, but I think you were right when you said that my libertarian worldview is obstructing my ability to engage you here in a very real sense that I was not aware of until now.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Your list of bullets helped a lot because I'm a hard \\\"no\\\" on all three until you are showing me specific legislation - same exact position as on the present question.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In each and every case, legislation is a \\\"last resort\\\" action for me. And even then, I'd need to rule out local and state legislation (in that order) before even considering \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"federal \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"legislation. And I'd want to make sure the problem wasn't due in the first place to a failure of implementation/enforcement/adjudication of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"existing\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" legislation. Example, we already have laws that protect \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"free citizen's safe, voluntary access to \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"any \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"legal place or activity (so that includes women accessing legal abortions).  And I'd want to make sure the problem wasn't an unintended consequence of existing legislation. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This all seems completely normal and natural for me.  I look at your first bullet and I see:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"should we have \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"[words which are crafted by lobbyists of special interests and adopted by politicians who largely gain power via grift and dishonesty (the last people you'd ever trust with anything) after arguing and \\\"compromising\\\" with each other (IE, horse-trading with our tax dollars), and which will be implemented by largely incompetent bureaucrats in whatever way best protects their long-term interests and will be selectively enforced and misused by policing powers and adjudicated by lifelong judges who don't know my name but are best friends with the aforementioned politicians, special interests, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and police powers]\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" that limit human-induced climate change?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Nope. I'm not for that.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"},{\"type\":\"underline\"}],\"text\":\"BUT\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\", what I'm realizing now is that I'm the odd-ball on that. Most libertarians will say \\\"Hell yeah\\\" to everything I've written here, but normies are probably saying \\\"Man, this dude has a weird problem with \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"laws\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"!\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So now I'm inspired to change my explanation on this and try to address those normies a little better. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As far as all this goes between us, on this Question, I think this solves it. You may as well ask an athiest to join you in a debate on some esoteric aspect of Dutch Calvinism. This is just not an area that makes any sense for me to engage in, other than to caution others that I don't think they should either. And yes, that's down to worldview. But I'm totally okay with that.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There's a great thing; can't remember where I picked it up. But most people who support legislation are basically saying: \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A: We must do something.\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"B: This is something.\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"C: Therefore, we must do this.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If I'm opposed to your cure (or category of cures), that doesn't mean I deny the disease.  (see new LEM)\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>1: 11/26 5:55.</strong></p><p>I created this as an offshoot of the Libertarian Worldview/Hayek LEM. </p><p>This to me is the biggest topic we are hung up on, so I&apos;m going to try to focus on it.</p><p>My answer is &quot;No&quot;. There is no value in discussing what shouldn&apos;t be legal without specifics. </p><p>Here&apos;s my reason why:</p><p>In the real world, legislators need to pass specific legislation.  It&apos;s easy to say &quot;there ought to be a law&quot;. It&apos;s far more difficult to actually craft an effective law, meaning one that will, once implemented in the real world, have the desired impact without unintended outcomes that outweigh any benefits. This is why I reject engagement at the broad, hypothetical level. If you said, &quot;You ought to create a viral app that will make you a multi-millionaire. Do you agree?&quot; I would say, &quot;well, maybe, if you can tell me how I would do such a thing, in a way that would actually yield the multi-millions and not ruin my life in unexpected ways&quot;. </p><p>I can totally agree with &quot;dark patterns are bad&quot; and &quot;dark patterns are immoral&quot;, and &quot;the people who implement dark patterns should be ashamed of themselves&quot;, etc. In the same way I can totally agree with &quot;it would be nice to be a multi-millionaire.&quot; But to say &quot;We should implement X&quot; without specifics about what X is, is to me just noise</p><p><strong>3: 11/29 1:34pm</strong></p><p>Halleluiah! I think I just really understood what&apos;s happening here for the first time.</p><p>Not only that, but I think you were right when you said that my libertarian worldview is obstructing my ability to engage you here in a very real sense that I was not aware of until now.</p><p>Your list of bullets helped a lot because I&apos;m a hard &quot;no&quot; on all three until you are showing me specific legislation - same exact position as on the present question.</p><p>In each and every case, legislation is a &quot;last resort&quot; action for me. And even then, I&apos;d need to rule out local and state legislation (in that order) before even considering <em>federal </em>legislation. And I&apos;d want to make sure the problem wasn&apos;t due in the first place to a failure of implementation/enforcement/adjudication of <em>existing</em> legislation. Example, we already have laws that protect <em>any </em>free citizen&apos;s safe, voluntary access to <em>any </em>legal place or activity (so that includes women accessing legal abortions).  And I&apos;d want to make sure the problem wasn&apos;t an unintended consequence of existing legislation. </p><p>This all seems completely normal and natural for me.  I look at your first bullet and I see:</p><ul><li><p>should we have <em>[words which are crafted by lobbyists of special interests and adopted by politicians who largely gain power via grift and dishonesty (the last people you&apos;d ever trust with anything) after arguing and &quot;compromising&quot; with each other (IE, horse-trading with our tax dollars), and which will be implemented by largely incompetent bureaucrats in whatever way best protects their long-term interests and will be selectively enforced and misused by policing powers and adjudicated by lifelong judges who don&apos;t know my name but are best friends with the aforementioned politicians, special interests, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and police powers]</em> that limit human-induced climate change?</p></li></ul><p>Nope. I&apos;m not for that.</p><p><u><em>BUT</em></u>, what I&apos;m realizing now is that I&apos;m the odd-ball on that. Most libertarians will say &quot;Hell yeah&quot; to everything I&apos;ve written here, but normies are probably saying &quot;Man, this dude has a weird problem with <em>laws</em>!&quot;</p><p>So now I&apos;m inspired to change my explanation on this and try to address those normies a little better. </p><p>As far as all this goes between us, on this Question, I think this solves it. You may as well ask an athiest to join you in a debate on some esoteric aspect of Dutch Calvinism. This is just not an area that makes any sense for me to engage in, other than to caution others that I don&apos;t think they should either. And yes, that&apos;s down to worldview. But I&apos;m totally okay with that.</p><p>There&apos;s a great thing; can&apos;t remember where I picked it up. But most people who support legislation are basically saying: </p><p>A: We must do something.<br>B: This is something.<br>C: Therefore, we must do this.</p><p>If I&apos;m opposed to your cure (or category of cures), that doesn&apos;t mean I deny the disease.  (see new LEM)</p>"},{"title":"Is your libertarian world view answering an \"\"upstream\"\" question about laws?","lem_id":35,"created_at":"2023-11-27T03:52:54.835Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"2: 28-11-2023, 5:22pm\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There is value because defining and agreeing on what \\\"should\\\" be done is usually a precursor to even planning it at all then \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"finally \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"doing it. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In the real world, people genuinely disagree about the \\\"should\\\", which can be the end of the conversation. It can be pretty difficult to even approach alignment, in some cases. For example:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"should we have laws that limit human-induced climate change?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"should we have laws to mitigate the spread of COVID?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"should we have laws that guarantee safe abortion access to women?\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I get that you don't value it as highly, but don't you agree that a question like this also has a genuine yes/no split based on purely the phenomena of dark patterns?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"4: 30-11-2023, 11:24am EST\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Haha, yes! We got there.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"Should we have a law for abc\\\" is answered for you by the upstream worldview question of \\\"Is there value in discussing what shouldn't be legal without specifics?\\\".\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I am working (on this question) within a system you reject entirely. The atheist example is good one, but I'd add that the atheist could step into that system and still entertain the dialogue, though everyone knows that they don't believe in god.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The desire to \\\"go upstream\\\" is prevalent in a lot of debate about allocating resources because inevitably if you do think there's a big issue then it's much better leverage to solve it. It's like if I told you \\\"I \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"need \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"to buy an espresso machine cuz I'm so tired all the time!\\\", but you know I stay up to 3am gaming every night.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"An aside:\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" the way that this engagement has gone is why I think worldview questions are useful and is also evidence to me about how relatively little facts & evidence weigh into that feedback loop we discussed. It's ALSO an example of why libertarians are widely regarded as trolls :P.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>2: 28-11-2023, 5:22pm</strong></p><p>There is value because defining and agreeing on what &quot;should&quot; be done is usually a precursor to even planning it at all then <em>finally </em>doing it. </p><p>In the real world, people genuinely disagree about the &quot;should&quot;, which can be the end of the conversation. It can be pretty difficult to even approach alignment, in some cases. For example:</p><ul><li><p>should we have laws that limit human-induced climate change?</p></li><li><p>should we have laws to mitigate the spread of COVID?</p></li><li><p>should we have laws that guarantee safe abortion access to women?</p></li></ul><p>I get that you don&apos;t value it as highly, but don&apos;t you agree that a question like this also has a genuine yes/no split based on purely the phenomena of dark patterns?</p><p></p><p><strong>4: 30-11-2023, 11:24am EST</strong></p><p>Haha, yes! We got there.</p><p>&quot;Should we have a law for abc&quot; is answered for you by the upstream worldview question of &quot;Is there value in discussing what shouldn&apos;t be legal without specifics?&quot;.</p><p>I am working (on this question) within a system you reject entirely. The atheist example is good one, but I&apos;d add that the atheist could step into that system and still entertain the dialogue, though everyone knows that they don&apos;t believe in god.</p><p>The desire to &quot;go upstream&quot; is prevalent in a lot of debate about allocating resources because inevitably if you do think there&apos;s a big issue then it&apos;s much better leverage to solve it. It&apos;s like if I told you &quot;I <em>need </em>to buy an espresso machine cuz I&apos;m so tired all the time!&quot;, but you know I stay up to 3am gaming every night.</p><p><strong>An aside:</strong> the way that this engagement has gone is why I think worldview questions are useful and is also evidence to me about how relatively little facts &amp; evidence weigh into that feedback loop we discussed. It&apos;s ALSO an example of why libertarians are widely regarded as trolls :P.</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-11-30T16:34:48.995Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"11/30 6:44am\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Say you pose the question: \\\"Should we medicate against cancers?\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I say \\\"It depends. Which cancer? What medicine do you have for it? How do you know it will actually help with that cancer? How do you know it doesn't have worse side effects than the cancer?\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You say: \\\"You are just anti-medicine, so you are blocked from even considering this question!\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Is there any value in this analogy for you, or am I just repeating myself?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>11/30 6:44am</strong></p><p>Say you pose the question: &quot;Should we medicate against cancers?&quot;</p><p>I say &quot;It depends. Which cancer? What medicine do you have for it? How do you know it will actually help with that cancer? How do you know it doesn&apos;t have worse side effects than the cancer?&quot;</p><p>You say: &quot;You are just anti-medicine, so you are blocked from even considering this question!&quot;</p><p>Is there any value in this analogy for you, or am I just repeating myself?</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-11-30T16:34:48.998Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"2: 30-11-2023, 11:24am EST\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"medication = law\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"cancer = dark pattern\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like it and do think it's illustrative. The part I disagree with is the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"generous interpretation \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"of the conversation! \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This is how I viewed it playing out:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"S: should we medicate against cancers?\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"P: 10% yes, cuz \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"in reality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" medications are almost always worse and come with unintended consequences. I skimmed all those cancers you mentioned and most aren't even that bad, but all these medications are garbage pushed by big pharma. It's silly to even talk about it until you show me a specific cancer+medication combo that has played out \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"in reality\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\".\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"S: Oh, but I cancers \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"are \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"pretty bad and yeah the medication isn't great, but it's the best we have right now...people are literally dying. You seem to have an issue with medications.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"P: listen, you're just brainwashed by the medication lobby and don't see that if we could just remove all medication and live healthy holistic lives we wouldn't even have cancer.\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"exit stage left\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"fade to black\"},{\"type\":\"hardBreak\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p><strong>2: 30-11-2023, 11:24am EST</strong></p><p>medication = law<br>cancer = dark pattern</p><p>I like it and do think it&apos;s illustrative. The part I disagree with is the <strong>generous interpretation </strong>of the conversation! </p><p>This is how I viewed it playing out:</p><ul><li><p>S: should we medicate against cancers?</p></li><li><p>P: 10% yes, cuz <em>in reality</em> medications are almost always worse and come with unintended consequences. I skimmed all those cancers you mentioned and most aren&apos;t even that bad, but all these medications are garbage pushed by big pharma. It&apos;s silly to even talk about it until you show me a specific cancer+medication combo that has played out <em>in reality</em>.</p></li><li><p>S: Oh, but I cancers <em>are </em>pretty bad and yeah the medication isn&apos;t great, but it&apos;s the best we have right now...people are literally dying. You seem to have an issue with medications.</p></li><li><p>P: listen, you&apos;re just brainwashed by the medication lobby and don&apos;t see that if we could just remove all medication and live healthy holistic lives we wouldn&apos;t even have cancer.</p></li></ul><p><em>exit stage left</em></p><p><em>fade to black</em><br></p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-21T19:06:56.536Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Funny, but not quite fair. I keep saying I'm more than happy to address any specific cancer+medication combo, and in fact, I keep asking for one.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"All the rest is just me explaining why I think specifics are necessary and pointing out dangers of proceeding without specifics.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm even fine with \\\"Is there reason to suspect that a useful medicine could be developed for this specific cancer?\\\" But when the question is \\\"should we medicate against cancers (for which there are currently no known medication)?\\\",  I think my \\\"depends on the medication/cancer combo\\\" is the only reasonable answer. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So anyway, I guess the analogy didn't work!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Funny, but not quite fair. I keep saying I&apos;m more than happy to address any specific cancer+medication combo, and in fact, I keep asking for one.</p><p>All the rest is just me explaining why I think specifics are necessary and pointing out dangers of proceeding without specifics.</p><p>I&apos;m even fine with &quot;Is there reason to suspect that a useful medicine could be developed for this specific cancer?&quot; But when the question is &quot;should we medicate against cancers (for which there are currently no known medication)?&quot;,  I think my &quot;depends on the medication/cancer combo&quot; is the only reasonable answer. </p><p>So anyway, I guess the analogy didn&apos;t work!</p>"},{"title":"Responding to your response","lem_id":102,"created_at":"2023-12-21T23:58:48.787Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yes, because the evils that can be wrought through government in the name of good intentions make the evils that can done by large corporate technocrats look like a stubbed toe.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You know who had a lot of great ideas about how to protect the masses from the evils of capitalism? Lenin. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Seem excessive? Read his biography. It's not excessive. It's exactly what happened.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.\\\"  - Ben Franklin.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<blockquote><p>In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!</p></blockquote><p>Yes, because the evils that can be wrought through government in the name of good intentions make the evils that can done by large corporate technocrats look like a stubbed toe.</p><p>You know who had a lot of great ideas about how to protect the masses from the evils of capitalism? Lenin. </p><p>Seem excessive? Read his biography. It&apos;s not excessive. It&apos;s exactly what happened.</p><p>&quot;Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.&quot;  - Ben Franklin.</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-22T20:55:47.927Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Haha, it did a little! In terms of the general \\\"should we do xyz\\\", medicating against cancers while people are dying from them \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"seems\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" like the more sensible default, while still exploring alternative options. Similarly, there is active widespread fraud (\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Hayek \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"said this is one of the important things to stop!) and personal impacts, so I see it as similar\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Maybe it relates to this addition:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(for which there are currently no known medication)\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"How'd you come to add it? Much of deceptive design has known medications!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Haha, it did a little! In terms of the general &quot;should we do xyz&quot;, medicating against cancers while people are dying from them <em>seems</em> like the more sensible default, while still exploring alternative options. Similarly, there is active widespread fraud (<strong>Hayek </strong>said this is one of the important things to stop!) and personal impacts, so I see it as similar</p><p>Maybe it relates to this addition:</p><blockquote><p>(for which there are currently no known medication)</p></blockquote><p>How&apos;d you come to add it? Much of deceptive design has known medications!</p>"},{"title":"Responding to your response","lem_id":102,"created_at":"2023-12-22T21:10:52.191Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Obligatory apology for the obnoxiously phrased response :D. They're kinda fun to write, while letting the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"real work\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" be done in LEMs. I think it's a good place to put a very concise or resonant take on a viewpoint. For this one, I wanted to highlight that the real issue is with legislation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yes, because the evils that can be wrought through government in the name of good intentions make the evils that can done by large corporate technocrats look like a stubbed toe.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I added a question about that point \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"very \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"early, I think. Yes! \"},{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"27\",\"textContent\":\"It's here\",\"users\":[]}},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". This is a huuuuuge world view question, no? Kinda the bedrock of a lot of things.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As for Lenin:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"can you clarify the connection here? You wrote it with some \\\"gotcha umph\\\" so I figure it's just evoking the big bad of communism in the USSR, but would love to hear more specifically!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"can you recommend a particular biography? I'm currently reading about the collapse of the USSR so it would probably be nice context.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Always nice to hear from a FF! What do you think he'd say about the current late-stage capitalism setup that relies on US global imperialism? Do you think he'd help write the new declaration of independence for the rest of the world?!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Obligatory apology for the obnoxiously phrased response :D. They&apos;re kinda fun to write, while letting the <em>real work</em> be done in LEMs. I think it&apos;s a good place to put a very concise or resonant take on a viewpoint. For this one, I wanted to highlight that the real issue is with legislation.</p><blockquote><p>Yes, because the evils that can be wrought through government in the name of good intentions make the evils that can done by large corporate technocrats look like a stubbed toe.</p></blockquote><p>I added a question about that point <em>very </em>early, I think. Yes! <exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"It&apos;s here\" users=\"\"></exu-link>. This is a huuuuuge world view question, no? Kinda the bedrock of a lot of things.</p><p>As for Lenin:</p><ul><li><p>can you clarify the connection here? You wrote it with some &quot;gotcha umph&quot; so I figure it&apos;s just evoking the big bad of communism in the USSR, but would love to hear more specifically!</p></li><li><p>can you recommend a particular biography? I&apos;m currently reading about the collapse of the USSR so it would probably be nice context.</p><p></p></li></ul><p>Always nice to hear from a FF! What do you think he&apos;d say about the current late-stage capitalism setup that relies on US global imperialism? Do you think he&apos;d help write the new declaration of independence for the rest of the world?!</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-23T18:51:05.737Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"medicating against cancers while people are dying from them \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"seems\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" like the more sensible default\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Of course, if you have medication that you know is effective, (or even have good reason to believe) is effective, while lacking offsetting negative side effects.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Similarly, there is active widespread fraud (\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Hayek \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"said this is one of the important things to stop!) \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Somewhere, you and I have a LEM going on where I recently made a distinction between what me and Hayek mean by fraud and what I think you might mean. Not going to repeat that here.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Maybe it relates to this addition:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(for which there are currently no known medication)\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"How'd you come to add it? Much of deceptive design has known medications!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"First answer: Great! Pick one example and I'm <still> ready to go!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Second answer: We are talking about two different things. Granted, you can show me deceptive design pattern, which you and I will both find awful, and you can easily point to the \\\"fix\\\" in that particular case. (The fix would probably look like \\\"Force that website owner to stop doing that thing.\\\")\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But medicine in our analogy isn't that simple. In our analogy, the medicine is the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"law \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"that once implemented will actually solve many or most instances of that design pattern without offsetting negative side effects.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Doesn't that make sense?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<blockquote><p>medicating against cancers while people are dying from them <em>seems</em> like the more sensible default</p></blockquote><p>Of course, if you have medication that you know is effective, (or even have good reason to believe) is effective, while lacking offsetting negative side effects.</p><blockquote><p>Similarly, there is active widespread fraud (<strong>Hayek </strong>said this is one of the important things to stop!) </p></blockquote><p>Somewhere, you and I have a LEM going on where I recently made a distinction between what me and Hayek mean by fraud and what I think you might mean. Not going to repeat that here.</p><blockquote><p>Maybe it relates to this addition:</p><blockquote><p>(for which there are currently no known medication)</p></blockquote><p>How&apos;d you come to add it? Much of deceptive design has known medications!</p></blockquote><p>First answer: Great! Pick one example and I&apos;m &lt;still&gt; ready to go!</p><p>Second answer: We are talking about two different things. Granted, you can show me deceptive design pattern, which you and I will both find awful, and you can easily point to the &quot;fix&quot; in that particular case. (The fix would probably look like &quot;Force that website owner to stop doing that thing.&quot;)</p><p>But medicine in our analogy isn&apos;t that simple. In our analogy, the medicine is the <em><strong>law </strong></em>that once implemented will actually solve many or most instances of that design pattern without offsetting negative side effects.</p><p>Doesn&apos;t that make sense?</p>"},{"title":"Responding to your response","lem_id":102,"created_at":"2023-12-23T20:32:59.679Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I added a question about that point \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"very \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"early, I think. Yes! \"},{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":27,\"textContent\":\"It's here\",\"users\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". This is a huuuuuge world view question, no? Kinda the bedrock of a lot of things.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Absolutely. But as we've covered before, worldviews, at least from my perspective, are established from a lot of specific applications over time. I see worldview as a useful amalgamation of observed patterns from specific applications that serves as a shortcut in new applications. It's only as good as the patterns are accurate, which depends on accurate interpretation of all those specific applications.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think it's also possible to adopt a worldview without the work described above, simply because it sounds right, or because it's been beaten into one's skull through indoctrination. There are probably other ways.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"What I've repeatedly suggested is that we test our worldviews on whatever specifics you would like to suggest. I can't defend my worldview at the worldview level, other than to start to pull out specific patterns and examples that helped form it. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The test of a worldview is in specific application. There's really no point, or method I can think of, to debate worldviews at the worldview level.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Tempted to create a LEM or Question on everything above, but some serious portion of it is already redundant with other LEMs on this page.  Open to your thoughts.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I will create a LEM for Lenin.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Always nice to hear from a FF! What do you think he'd say about the current late-stage capitalism setup that relies on US global imperialism? Do you think he'd help write the new declaration of independence for the rest of the world?!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I'll be happy to engage. \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<blockquote><p>I added a question about that point <em>very </em>early, I think. Yes! <exu-link questionId=\"27\" textContent=\"It&apos;s here\" users=\"\"></exu-link>. This is a huuuuuge world view question, no? Kinda the bedrock of a lot of things.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely. But as we&apos;ve covered before, worldviews, at least from my perspective, are established from a lot of specific applications over time. I see worldview as a useful amalgamation of observed patterns from specific applications that serves as a shortcut in new applications. It&apos;s only as good as the patterns are accurate, which depends on accurate interpretation of all those specific applications.</p><p>I think it&apos;s also possible to adopt a worldview without the work described above, simply because it sounds right, or because it&apos;s been beaten into one&apos;s skull through indoctrination. There are probably other ways.</p><p>What I&apos;ve repeatedly suggested is that we test our worldviews on whatever specifics you would like to suggest. I can&apos;t defend my worldview at the worldview level, other than to start to pull out specific patterns and examples that helped form it. </p><p>The test of a worldview is in specific application. There&apos;s really no point, or method I can think of, to debate worldviews at the worldview level.</p><p>Tempted to create a LEM or Question on everything above, but some serious portion of it is already redundant with other LEMs on this page.  Open to your thoughts.</p><p>I will create a LEM for Lenin.</p><blockquote><p>Always nice to hear from a FF! What do you think he&apos;d say about the current late-stage capitalism setup that relies on US global imperialism? Do you think he&apos;d help write the new declaration of independence for the rest of the world?!</p></blockquote><p>I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I&apos;ll be happy to engage. </p>"},{"title":"Wading into my reference to Lenin","lem_id":107,"created_at":"2023-12-23T21:01:01.713Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For context, I had written the following: \"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You know who had a lot of great ideas about how to protect the masses from the evils of capitalism? Lenin. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Seem excessive? Read his biography. It's not excessive. It's exactly what happened.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To which you responded:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"can you clarify the connection here? You wrote it with some \\\"gotcha umph\\\" so I figure it's just evoking the big bad of communism in the USSR, but would love to hear more specifically!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"can you recommend a particular biography? I'm currently reading about the collapse of the USSR so it would probably be nice context.\"}]}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"My reference is much more specific than that. I am reading (embarrassingly slowly) \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Man-Dictator-Master-Terror-ebook/dp/B06WLJZNBH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QT8SE5NXWBBZ&keywords=lenin&qid=1703345913&s=digital-text&sprefix=lenin%2Cdigital-text%2C93&sr=1-1\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"this biography\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The following is from the Amazon description with my emphasis.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"He seized power in a coup, promised a revolution, a socialist utopia for the people, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"offered simple solutions to complex issues\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"... He authorized the deaths of thousands of people and created a system based on the idea that political terror against opponents was justified for the greater ideal. One of his old comrades who had once admired him said he \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"\\\"desired the good...but created evil\\\"\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\".\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I have found it depressing and don't know that I can recommend. The fundamental lesson for me is that once the instinct takes hold to solve social problems by harnessing the state, it is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I expected that slope to be longer and shallower than it was in revolutionary Russia, with lots of opportunities to re-assess and back up. But it wasn't like that at all. There seems to be a strong dynamic where things don't go as planned by the powers that be, and the only possible explanation is that they need to do more and do it with more force. The truly depressing part is that Lenin gave no signs of devious manipulation (which I also expected), but rather seemed to consistently believe in the utopia he was pursuing.  He truly believed that capitalism was fundamentally exploitative and inevitably led to imperialism. His belief that he could correct that by force led to unbelievable pain and suffering that continues today.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"So that's the connection I was making. Seeing something in a market that you don't like and thinking \\\"there ought to be a law\\\" is a potentially dangerous instinct. To go FF on you again:\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"\\\"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.\\\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"- George Washington\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I love the fire analogy. Yes, we need it, but it's not for every situation, and you had better always be highly attuned to the potential dangers you are introducing when you use it. The fire analogy extends nicely to the idea of constitutional limited government as a fireplace or furnace. Keep the fire within it's bounds to do it's most necessary functions, but be wary about letting it out of those constraints, because it will take over and destroy everything and that can happen faster than you might expect.  The Lenin story is just a perfect illustration of that.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>For context, I had written the following: </p><blockquote><p>You know who had a lot of great ideas about how to protect the masses from the evils of capitalism? Lenin. </p><p>Seem excessive? Read his biography. It&apos;s not excessive. It&apos;s exactly what happened.</p></blockquote><p>To which you responded:</p><blockquote><ul><li><p>can you clarify the connection here? You wrote it with some &quot;gotcha umph&quot; so I figure it&apos;s just evoking the big bad of communism in the USSR, but would love to hear more specifically!</p></li><li><p>can you recommend a particular biography? I&apos;m currently reading about the collapse of the USSR so it would probably be nice context.</p></li></ul></blockquote><p>My reference is much more specific than that. I am reading (embarrassingly slowly) <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Man-Dictator-Master-Terror-ebook/dp/B06WLJZNBH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QT8SE5NXWBBZ&amp;keywords=lenin&amp;qid=1703345913&amp;s=digital-text&amp;sprefix=lenin%2Cdigital-text%2C93&amp;sr=1-1\">this biography</a>. </p><p>The following is from the Amazon description with my emphasis.</p><blockquote><p><em>He seized power in a coup, promised a revolution, a socialist utopia for the people, <strong>offered simple solutions to complex issues</strong>... He authorized the deaths of thousands of people and created a system based on the idea that political terror against opponents was justified for the greater ideal. One of his old comrades who had once admired him said he <strong>&quot;desired the good...but created evil&quot;</strong>.</em></p></blockquote><p>I have found it depressing and don&apos;t know that I can recommend. The fundamental lesson for me is that once the instinct takes hold to solve social problems by harnessing the state, it is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I expected that slope to be longer and shallower than it was in revolutionary Russia, with lots of opportunities to re-assess and back up. But it wasn&apos;t like that at all. There seems to be a strong dynamic where things don&apos;t go as planned by the powers that be, and the only possible explanation is that they need to do more and do it with more force. The truly depressing part is that Lenin gave no signs of devious manipulation (which I also expected), but rather seemed to consistently believe in the utopia he was pursuing.  He truly believed that capitalism was fundamentally exploitative and inevitably led to imperialism. His belief that he could correct that by force led to unbelievable pain and suffering that continues today.</p><p>So that&apos;s the connection I was making. Seeing something in a market that you don&apos;t like and thinking &quot;there ought to be a law&quot; is a potentially dangerous instinct. To go FF on you again:</p><p><em>&quot;Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.&quot; </em>- George Washington</p><p>I love the fire analogy. Yes, we need it, but it&apos;s not for every situation, and you had better always be highly attuned to the potential dangers you are introducing when you use it. The fire analogy extends nicely to the idea of constitutional limited government as a fireplace or furnace. Keep the fire within it&apos;s bounds to do it&apos;s most necessary functions, but be wary about letting it out of those constraints, because it will take over and destroy everything and that can happen faster than you might expect.  The Lenin story is just a perfect illustration of that.</p>"},{"title":"Wading into my reference to Lenin","lem_id":107,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:02:49.868Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Nice! Without the specific knowledge of Lenin, which I hope to pursue soon, I have seen these general criticisms of communist revolutions/experiments etc. The truth of it seems to be very much a \\\"world view\\\" type question, which is genuinely difficult to answer, muddied by complex questions and heavily politicized, especially in the US.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To start, you (and I mean \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"you\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\") have to acknowledge that there is an equal-and-opposite perspective that is backed by pretty legitimate analysis. The view you propose is actually a common one from Western-centric history, which has largely amplified the evils of the USSR, while dampening its own. It's truly a \\\"grand narrative\\\" that people are fighting over. I simply don't accept hand-waving of \\\"100 million dead!\\\" or \\\"every socialist country has failed!\\\" because it does not address the core issues nor does it understand the complex history of the 20th century. It hasn't \\\"done the work\\\". Should I read about US imperialism, covert ops and assassinations and simply conclude that it is pure evil?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The libertarian vision seems to me to correctly diagnose the many symptoms (e.g. Iron Triangles of regulation, government corruption, government inefficiencies), but misses the mark on causes. You had a free market with limited government and our current bloated oligarchy is the natural conclusion of that. It's built in. You're romantically calling back to the past, but if you actually were to reset, we'd just end up here anyways. Further, there is no libertarian plan of getting there (that doesn't involve being eaten by bears :P), which makes it more of a utopian dream than communism, which actually constantly builds on pathways of transition.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"offered simple solutions to complex issues\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As I've come to understand some of the nuance, just saying \\\"free market!\\\" is actually the simpler solution. I encourage you to genuinely treat with theories of \\\"socialist transition\\\", communism and pure democracy that they deal with. The USSR \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"was\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" fucked up and incredibly corrupt, but does that mean all of the ideas were horrendous? What about the successes, like Vietnam, which actually \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"had to fight a war\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" against multiple free market capitalist states that were there simply out of an irrational fear of some global communist boogieman?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There's so much depth here and I acknowledge I'm early on it! It has complexity, uncertainty, scale and is a \\\"wild problems\\\". It should be treated with that respect! In the mean time, on this question, I won't accept a broad world view answer that points at a slippery slope when the current situation \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"is\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" bad (which is obviously what our disagreement \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"here\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" should focus on)!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Nice! Without the specific knowledge of Lenin, which I hope to pursue soon, I have seen these general criticisms of communist revolutions/experiments etc. The truth of it seems to be very much a &quot;world view&quot; type question, which is genuinely difficult to answer, muddied by complex questions and heavily politicized, especially in the US.</p><p>To start, you (and I mean <em>you</em>) have to acknowledge that there is an equal-and-opposite perspective that is backed by pretty legitimate analysis. The view you propose is actually a common one from Western-centric history, which has largely amplified the evils of the USSR, while dampening its own. It&apos;s truly a &quot;grand narrative&quot; that people are fighting over. I simply don&apos;t accept hand-waving of &quot;100 million dead!&quot; or &quot;every socialist country has failed!&quot; because it does not address the core issues nor does it understand the complex history of the 20th century. It hasn&apos;t &quot;done the work&quot;. Should I read about US imperialism, covert ops and assassinations and simply conclude that it is pure evil?</p><p>The libertarian vision seems to me to correctly diagnose the many symptoms (e.g. Iron Triangles of regulation, government corruption, government inefficiencies), but misses the mark on causes. You had a free market with limited government and our current bloated oligarchy is the natural conclusion of that. It&apos;s built in. You&apos;re romantically calling back to the past, but if you actually were to reset, we&apos;d just end up here anyways. Further, there is no libertarian plan of getting there (that doesn&apos;t involve being eaten by bears :P), which makes it more of a utopian dream than communism, which actually constantly builds on pathways of transition.</p><p></p><blockquote><p><em><strong>offered simple solutions to complex issues</strong></em></p></blockquote><p>As I&apos;ve come to understand some of the nuance, just saying &quot;free market!&quot; is actually the simpler solution. I encourage you to genuinely treat with theories of &quot;socialist transition&quot;, communism and pure democracy that they deal with. The USSR <em>was</em> fucked up and incredibly corrupt, but does that mean all of the ideas were horrendous? What about the successes, like Vietnam, which actually <strong>had to fight a war</strong> against multiple free market capitalist states that were there simply out of an irrational fear of some global communist boogieman?</p><p>There&apos;s so much depth here and I acknowledge I&apos;m early on it! It has complexity, uncertainty, scale and is a &quot;wild problems&quot;. It should be treated with that respect! In the mean time, on this question, I won&apos;t accept a broad world view answer that points at a slippery slope when the current situation <em>is</em> bad (which is obviously what our disagreement <em>here</em> should focus on)!</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:07:00.462Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"As a reminder, I \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"did\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" point out some of them at some point and you dismissed it! In a world of LEMs, let's go forward with a focused version of this! Adding LEMs.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>As a reminder, I <em>did</em> point out some of them at some point and you dismissed it! In a world of LEMs, let&apos;s go forward with a focused version of this! Adding LEMs.</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:08:01.096Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Oh, about \\\"fraud\\\". You said what you and US jurisprudence means by fraud, not Hayek. From what I've seen, he is largely referring to things that result in \\\"adverse selection\\\", not some narrow legal definition.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Oh, about &quot;fraud&quot;. You said what you and US jurisprudence means by fraud, not Hayek. From what I&apos;ve seen, he is largely referring to things that result in &quot;adverse selection&quot;, not some narrow legal definition.</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:17:19.193Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Further, we should look at more modern examples, because I think anything pre-internet will be woefully uninformed. The game has changed!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Further, we should look at more modern examples, because I think anything pre-internet will be woefully uninformed. The game has changed!</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:19:15.550Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"fake slash through prices dealt with an \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/ordinary-selling-price\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"example of a canadian law\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"a \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/cases/in-the-matter-of-epic-games-inc\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"few different DP from Epic games\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" that were based off of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/laws/children-s-online-privacy-protection-act-rule\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"this act\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"anything related to \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://gdpr-info.eu/\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"GDPR \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"is probably very relevant? \"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Off the top, I know Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have all been hit with various GDPR and DP law suits. I know Shopify has been cracked down on for its apps that explicitly enabled DP like fake sale timers and fake user reviews.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"How do you imagine diving into these? Look at a specific law and analyze some of its enforcement (good/bad) or tendencies to be misused? Look at cost/benefit? Or go from the Pattern -> Law angle, taking a DP and seeing how it's enforced? This \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"link\",\"attrs\":{\"href\":\"https://www.deceptive.design/laws\",\"target\":\"_blank\",\"rel\":\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\",\"class\":null}}],\"text\":\"section\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" offers a good outlet to both.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"From the specifics I've looked into, these regulations have simply allowed some recouping of value from Big Tech monopolies that are abusing their size!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<ul><li><p>fake slash through prices dealt with an <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/ordinary-selling-price\">example of a canadian law</a></p></li><li><p>a <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/cases/in-the-matter-of-epic-games-inc\">few different DP from Epic games</a> that were based off of <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/laws/children-s-online-privacy-protection-act-rule\">this act</a></p></li><li><p>anything related to <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://gdpr-info.eu/\">GDPR </a>is probably very relevant? </p></li></ul><p>Off the top, I know Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have all been hit with various GDPR and DP law suits. I know Shopify has been cracked down on for its apps that explicitly enabled DP like fake sale timers and fake user reviews.</p><p>How do you imagine diving into these? Look at a specific law and analyze some of its enforcement (good/bad) or tendencies to be misused? Look at cost/benefit? Or go from the Pattern -&gt; Law angle, taking a DP and seeing how it&apos;s enforced? This <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https://www.deceptive.design/laws\">section</a> offers a good outlet to both.</p><p>From the specifics I&apos;ve looked into, these regulations have simply allowed some recouping of value from Big Tech monopolies that are abusing their size!</p>"},{"title":"Responding to your response","lem_id":102,"created_at":"2023-12-23T23:46:27.450Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like the takes on how one arrives at world views. Surely it's a spectrum that varies a lot per person and per view? Sometimes I'm predisposed to something and it resonates, while sometimes I work towards it for a long time and others I'm born with. I would be skeptical of any person who thinks all their world views are derived from the observation of specific patterns over time.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Further, some worldviews skew the actual observation, so there is a loop over time. If you're already a \\\"bootstrap person\\\", your analysis of info is seen through that lens. If you're \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"surrounded \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"by bootstrap folk then even \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"your inputs\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" are skewed in advance!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There's really no point, or method I can think of, to debate worldviews at the worldview level.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think such a debate would \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"at least\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" flesh out the key patterns that someone can look for. If we end up agreeing that it's a spectrum and there is some feedback loop which involves worldview bias, then this helps to identify where one might have gaps.\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Tempted to create a LEM or Question on everything above, but some serious portion of it is already redundant with other LEMs on this page.  Open to your thoughts.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I was actually thinking this question recently. I think it'll be a core question that will help orient people into the pitfalls of various conversations! To me, it's almost Question #1 for ExU, from which all other questions will \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"inevitably \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"reference!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I'll be happy to engage. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Why do you get to simply point at \\\"Lenin\\\" then bring up Ben, but I don't get to simply point at \\\"U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A\\\"?! Yes, the free market capitalism that largely defines the current western hegemony and imperialist tendency. This LEM is a bit heavy, so opening another on the topic!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I like the takes on how one arrives at world views. Surely it&apos;s a spectrum that varies a lot per person and per view? Sometimes I&apos;m predisposed to something and it resonates, while sometimes I work towards it for a long time and others I&apos;m born with. I would be skeptical of any person who thinks all their world views are derived from the observation of specific patterns over time.</p><p>Further, some worldviews skew the actual observation, so there is a loop over time. If you&apos;re already a &quot;bootstrap person&quot;, your analysis of info is seen through that lens. If you&apos;re <em>surrounded </em>by bootstrap folk then even <strong>your inputs</strong> are skewed in advance!</p><p></p><blockquote><p>There&apos;s really no point, or method I can think of, to debate worldviews at the worldview level.</p></blockquote><p>I think such a debate would <em>at least</em> flesh out the key patterns that someone can look for. If we end up agreeing that it&apos;s a spectrum and there is some feedback loop which involves worldview bias, then this helps to identify where one might have gaps.</p><blockquote><p>Tempted to create a LEM or Question on everything above, but some serious portion of it is already redundant with other LEMs on this page.  Open to your thoughts.</p></blockquote><p>I was actually thinking this question recently. I think it&apos;ll be a core question that will help orient people into the pitfalls of various conversations! To me, it&apos;s almost Question #1 for ExU, from which all other questions will <em>inevitably </em>reference!</p><p></p><blockquote><p>I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I&apos;ll be happy to engage. </p></blockquote><p>Why do you get to simply point at &quot;Lenin&quot; then bring up Ben, but I don&apos;t get to simply point at &quot;U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A&quot;?! Yes, the free market capitalism that largely defines the current western hegemony and imperialist tendency. This LEM is a bit heavy, so opening another on the topic!</p>"},{"title":"Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism","lem_id":109,"created_at":"2023-12-24T00:27:07.490Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Reference from other LEM:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I'll be happy to engage. \"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Why do you get to simply point at \\\"Lenin\\\" then bring up Ben, but I don't get to simply point at \\\"U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A\\\"?! Yes, the free market capitalism that largely defines the current western hegemony and imperialist tendency. This LEM is a bit heavy, so opening another on the topic!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Throughout the 20th century, \\\"the West\\\" has consistently enforced a global order to protect its interests. Mostly, I'd guess these interests reflect large entrenched power, but regardless, citizens are largely detached from the decision-making process and their feedback is rarely considered, especially in advance. The three major phenomenon of this enforcement are: invasion/war, covert disruption of other countries and economic coercion. You might say that this is politics, not economics, but I'd argue back that they are effectively interchangeable. Further, much of the enforcement is \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"specifically targeted\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" at alternate forms of economic arrangement. The West has fought viciously against any transition away from free market capitalism (i.e. socialist endeavors towards communism). If this connection is still fuzzy, I'd continue that the enforcement is necessary to account for the basic failings of free market capitalism (\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"<possible LEM> \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"e.g. profit optimization requires reducing costs while placating local citizens, so pushing costs to far away places is ideal). The scope of individual countries is no longer (has never been?) enough to properly analyze an economic system; it is a global scope.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To try and highlight some abstract facets:\"}]},{\"type\":\"bulletList\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"FMC tends towards compounding inequality (e.g. through incumbent advantages, the short-term power of monopolies and generational wealth)\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"FMC requires a huge amount of workers to execute on tasks, with few individuals yielding profits\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"FMC creates a natural tension between the profit motive of capital owners and motives of workers\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"FMC rewards the mere ownership of capital-producing goods\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"FMC tends towards the state of oligarchy and collusion of private interests and government\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"compounding inequality would eventually lead to a revolt of some kind, but has been deferred by pushing the inequality to far away places\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"listItem\",\"attrs\":{\"color\":null,\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"direct democracy is always discouraged because the imbalances in \\\"have nots\\\" would skew the vote\"}]}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"}},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This is a lot, but I think it's relevant context. In short, I'd ask \\\"aren't the gaps in FMC the main motivations for the US wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the destabilizing efforts in \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"throws dart at map?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'd dive into the theory of any specific facet or the broader narrative as well!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Thanks,\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Shane\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"P.S. I did this while eating and could not have otherwise allocated time to coding :D\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Reference from other LEM:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p>I can only derive from this that you see lots of problems in the world for which you believe capitalism to be responsible. I assume you mean free market capitalism. LEM me a specific example of such and I&apos;ll be happy to engage. </p></blockquote><p>Why do you get to simply point at &quot;Lenin&quot; then bring up Ben, but I don&apos;t get to simply point at &quot;U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A&quot;?! Yes, the free market capitalism that largely defines the current western hegemony and imperialist tendency. This LEM is a bit heavy, so opening another on the topic!</p><p></p></blockquote><p>Throughout the 20th century, &quot;the West&quot; has consistently enforced a global order to protect its interests. Mostly, I&apos;d guess these interests reflect large entrenched power, but regardless, citizens are largely detached from the decision-making process and their feedback is rarely considered, especially in advance. The three major phenomenon of this enforcement are: invasion/war, covert disruption of other countries and economic coercion. You might say that this is politics, not economics, but I&apos;d argue back that they are effectively interchangeable. Further, much of the enforcement is <strong>specifically targeted</strong> at alternate forms of economic arrangement. The West has fought viciously against any transition away from free market capitalism (i.e. socialist endeavors towards communism). If this connection is still fuzzy, I&apos;d continue that the enforcement is necessary to account for the basic failings of free market capitalism (<strong>&lt;possible LEM&gt; </strong>e.g. profit optimization requires reducing costs while placating local citizens, so pushing costs to far away places is ideal). The scope of individual countries is no longer (has never been?) enough to properly analyze an economic system; it is a global scope.</p><p></p><p>To try and highlight some abstract facets:</p><ul><li><p>FMC tends towards compounding inequality (e.g. through incumbent advantages, the short-term power of monopolies and generational wealth)</p></li><li><p>FMC requires a huge amount of workers to execute on tasks, with few individuals yielding profits</p></li><li><p>FMC creates a natural tension between the profit motive of capital owners and motives of workers</p></li><li><p>FMC rewards the mere ownership of capital-producing goods</p></li><li><p>FMC tends towards the state of oligarchy and collusion of private interests and government</p></li><li><p>compounding inequality would eventually lead to a revolt of some kind, but has been deferred by pushing the inequality to far away places</p></li><li><p>direct democracy is always discouraged because the imbalances in &quot;have nots&quot; would skew the vote</p></li></ul><p></p><p>This is a lot, but I think it&apos;s relevant context. In short, I&apos;d ask &quot;aren&apos;t the gaps in FMC the main motivations for the US wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the destabilizing efforts in <strong>throws dart at map?</strong>&quot;</p><p>I&apos;d dive into the theory of any specific facet or the broader narrative as well!</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Shane</p><p>P.S. I did this while eating and could not have otherwise allocated time to coding :D</p>"},{"title":"Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way)","lem_id":110,"created_at":"2023-12-26T22:14:54.966Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Casual conversation has a limit in that you can't follow all the threads that you want to follow. That sucks.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"LEMs have the exact opposite problem, in that, in principle anyway, you \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"can\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" follow each and every thread. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I find myself reading something like your  12/23/2023, 6:02:49 PM post in the Lenin LEM, and there are easily 10 potential LEMs to launch from it.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I suspect that as we continue to struggle with this, it \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"should \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"lead to some sort of intelligent selection where the most important potential threads are followed - or at least some attempt to go in that direction.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"But what concerns me is that all of this just feels like pointers\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\" away\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" from the Question --> Explanation --> Response structure, and further down the LEM --> LEM --> LEM --> LEM path.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I think part of our discipline has to be forcing ourselves to look for new Questions where we can find them so that we can reset to the higher level, and then to weave them back into the Explanations/Responses.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It is natural and to be expected that when worldviews vary as much as yours and mine do, that something like \\\"Should Dark Patterns be Illegal\\\" is going to lead to a network of LEMs of all kinds. The question is, are we just having a \\\"hyper conversation\\\" (like a normal conversation but supercharged by LEM tech), instead of pushing back to the structure that we want to have emerge here overall.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"One idea I have is a best practice that says \\\"Don't drop something in a LEM that you aren't willing to follow up on.\\\" It's too easy for me to drop a Lenin bomb or a founding father's quote, or the like, and it's too easy for you drop Vietnam references, etc, on the other side. But are we willing to really dig for the underlying questions, set them up, take clear positions with full explanations, etc, etc on all this stuff? My answer: I'd love to, and even more so, I'd love to have others do it for our benefit. And we only get that potential if we keep finding the points of disagreement and making them Questions in this system. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I feel like we've invented a great new forum/environment for engagement, but have not come close to figuring out how to best act within it.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Casual conversation has a limit in that you can&apos;t follow all the threads that you want to follow. That sucks.</p><p>LEMs have the exact opposite problem, in that, in principle anyway, you <em>can</em> follow each and every thread. </p><p>I find myself reading something like your  12/23/2023, 6:02:49 PM post in the Lenin LEM, and there are easily 10 potential LEMs to launch from it.</p><p>I suspect that as we continue to struggle with this, it <em>should </em>lead to some sort of intelligent selection where the most important potential threads are followed - or at least some attempt to go in that direction.</p><p>But what concerns me is that all of this just feels like pointers<em> away</em> from the Question --&gt; Explanation --&gt; Response structure, and further down the LEM --&gt; LEM --&gt; LEM --&gt; LEM path.</p><p>I think part of our discipline has to be forcing ourselves to look for new Questions where we can find them so that we can reset to the higher level, and then to weave them back into the Explanations/Responses.</p><p>It is natural and to be expected that when worldviews vary as much as yours and mine do, that something like &quot;Should Dark Patterns be Illegal&quot; is going to lead to a network of LEMs of all kinds. The question is, are we just having a &quot;hyper conversation&quot; (like a normal conversation but supercharged by LEM tech), instead of pushing back to the structure that we want to have emerge here overall.</p><p>One idea I have is a best practice that says &quot;Don&apos;t drop something in a LEM that you aren&apos;t willing to follow up on.&quot; It&apos;s too easy for me to drop a Lenin bomb or a founding father&apos;s quote, or the like, and it&apos;s too easy for you drop Vietnam references, etc, on the other side. But are we willing to really dig for the underlying questions, set them up, take clear positions with full explanations, etc, etc on all this stuff? My answer: I&apos;d love to, and even more so, I&apos;d love to have others do it for our benefit. And we only get that potential if we keep finding the points of disagreement and making them Questions in this system. </p><p>I feel like we&apos;ve invented a great new forum/environment for engagement, but have not come close to figuring out how to best act within it.</p>"},{"title":"Wading into my reference to Lenin","lem_id":107,"created_at":"2023-12-26T22:44:13.134Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"My mind is exploding. Just sent a new LEM on that!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If you were to break down and diagram our last few exchanges here, including your last, there is a constant growing of the \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"field of engagement\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". In a separate document, I have made notes about how many different things I'd like to pursue and respond to just in your last entry above. In every case, I have a sincere point that I want to express/clarify/explore because it feels wrong not to express/clarify/explore it. But I also know that doing so will \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"further \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"expand the field of engagement.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I respect everything you wrote here, but only one thing you wrote points us back to our original purpose here, \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"on this question:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" In the mean time, on this question, I won't accept a broad world view answer that points at a slippery slope when the current situation is bad (which is obviously what our disagreement here should focus on)!\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That statement is more of a \\\"field of engagement shrinking/refocusing\\\" statement, encouraging us both to keep or focus on the original Question. That's good. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Best practices say that we should stay on the topic of the LEM or close it out. I created this one to respond to your questions about Lenin that were prompted by my bringing him up, which I did in a defensive way after I interpreted something you said in your Response as demeaning of my viewpoint.  I don't know that any of that served the overall Question, and I don't see pursuing this LEM further as wise. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"That said, I have several new ideas for Questions from within it. I may suggest some of them here, and maybe we can force ourselves as much as possible to drive all these engagements back toward meaningful contributions to the Question --> Explanation --> Response part of the structure!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"(I hope none of this came off critical. Anything you did that I could criticize was something I did too, and I probably did it first and worst! This is hard.)\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>My mind is exploding. Just sent a new LEM on that!</p><p>If you were to break down and diagram our last few exchanges here, including your last, there is a constant growing of the <em>field of engagement</em>. In a separate document, I have made notes about how many different things I&apos;d like to pursue and respond to just in your last entry above. In every case, I have a sincere point that I want to express/clarify/explore because it feels wrong not to express/clarify/explore it. But I also know that doing so will <em>further </em>expand the field of engagement.</p><p>I respect everything you wrote here, but only one thing you wrote points us back to our original purpose here, <em>on this question:</em></p><blockquote><p> In the mean time, on this question, I won&apos;t accept a broad world view answer that points at a slippery slope when the current situation is bad (which is obviously what our disagreement here should focus on)!</p></blockquote><p>That statement is more of a &quot;field of engagement shrinking/refocusing&quot; statement, encouraging us both to keep or focus on the original Question. That&apos;s good. </p><p>Best practices say that we should stay on the topic of the LEM or close it out. I created this one to respond to your questions about Lenin that were prompted by my bringing him up, which I did in a defensive way after I interpreted something you said in your Response as demeaning of my viewpoint.  I don&apos;t know that any of that served the overall Question, and I don&apos;t see pursuing this LEM further as wise. </p><p>That said, I have several new ideas for Questions from within it. I may suggest some of them here, and maybe we can force ourselves as much as possible to drive all these engagements back toward meaningful contributions to the Question --&gt; Explanation --&gt; Response part of the structure!</p><p>(I hope none of this came off critical. Anything you did that I could criticize was something I did too, and I probably did it first and worst! This is hard.)</p>"},{"title":"Responding to your response","lem_id":102,"created_at":"2023-12-26T22:49:02.204Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"<See my response to \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"and \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Wading into my reference to Lenin\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". In light of what I said there, I'm advocating closing this one. Probably shouldn't have opened it in the first place. Too \\\"conversational\\\" and defensive with kind of a bullshit purpose statement.> \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>&lt;See my response to <em>Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) </em>and <em>Wading into my reference to Lenin</em>. In light of what I said there, I&apos;m advocating closing this one. Probably shouldn&apos;t have opened it in the first place. Too &quot;conversational&quot; and defensive with kind of a bullshit purpose statement.&gt; </p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-26T22:55:12.359Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"<First see my response to \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"and \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Wading into my reference to Lenin\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\".> \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Started this LEM to see if another analogy was useful. You said it was to some degree at least.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I should've closed the LEM there, and I should've decided whether or not to integrate the analogy into my Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Instead, we just started arguing some more within the analogy. Way too easy to do! When we do that, it results in all kinds of little points and counter-points being scattered around in LEMs.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Again, much here I could launch from, but I'm going to try to break the habit!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>&lt;First see my response to <em>Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) </em>and <em>Wading into my reference to Lenin</em>.&gt; </p><p>Started this LEM to see if another analogy was useful. You said it was to some degree at least.</p><p>I should&apos;ve closed the LEM there, and I should&apos;ve decided whether or not to integrate the analogy into my Explanation.</p><p>Instead, we just started arguing some more within the analogy. Way too easy to do! When we do that, it results in all kinds of little points and counter-points being scattered around in LEMs.</p><p>Again, much here I could launch from, but I&apos;m going to try to break the habit!</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2023-12-26T22:55:12.495Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"<First see my response to \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"and \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Wading into my reference to Lenin\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\".> \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Started this LEM to see if another analogy was useful. You said it was to some degree at least.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I should've closed the LEM there, and I should've decided whether or not to integrate the analogy into my Explanation.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Instead, we just started arguing some more within the analogy. Way too easy to do! When we do that, it results in all kinds of little points and counter-points being scattered around in LEMs.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Again, much here I could launch from, but I'm going to try to break the habit!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>&lt;First see my response to <em>Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way) </em>and <em>Wading into my reference to Lenin</em>.&gt; </p><p>Started this LEM to see if another analogy was useful. You said it was to some degree at least.</p><p>I should&apos;ve closed the LEM there, and I should&apos;ve decided whether or not to integrate the analogy into my Explanation.</p><p>Instead, we just started arguing some more within the analogy. Way too easy to do! When we do that, it results in all kinds of little points and counter-points being scattered around in LEMs.</p><p>Again, much here I could launch from, but I&apos;m going to try to break the habit!</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2023-12-26T23:02:03.783Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Love this LEM. Thanks. (I do recall now that you had raised the Canadian law on slash through prices. I lost it somewhere!)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Let's start by just picking one law or regulation (X) and taking it on as basically \\\"Does X do more good than harm to society as a whole?\\\" I like that construct myself because I think it sets a good practical tone.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'll leave my input at that and let you pick your favorite X and give a first shot at wording and then we can hone. Sound okay?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Love this LEM. Thanks. (I do recall now that you had raised the Canadian law on slash through prices. I lost it somewhere!)</p><p>Let&apos;s start by just picking one law or regulation (X) and taking it on as basically &quot;Does X do more good than harm to society as a whole?&quot; I like that construct myself because I think it sets a good practical tone.</p><p>I&apos;ll leave my input at that and let you pick your favorite X and give a first shot at wording and then we can hone. Sound okay?</p>"},{"title":"Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism","lem_id":109,"created_at":"2023-12-26T23:11:42.690Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Fantastic! Thank you.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"},{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"I'm thinking (hoping) that what you wrote above can be an Explanation on a Question that we can discover, which can then set the context for many of those bullet points you listed to set up underlying Questions.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm interested in all of it, but that seems like a smart place to start.  (I'm really trying to lean into pushing LEM content in the direction of the top level Q --> VP --> Response model)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Do you like the idea? IF so, what about something very general and wide?\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\" \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm thinking: \\\"Does US history demonstrate a failure of free market capitalism?\\\"\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"Going to be great when we can start and then adjust the Question as needed as we go!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Fantastic! Thank you.</p><p><em><strong>I&apos;m thinking (hoping) that what you wrote above can be an Explanation on a Question that we can discover, which can then set the context for many of those bullet points you listed to set up underlying Questions.</strong></em></p><p>I&apos;m interested in all of it, but that seems like a smart place to start.  (I&apos;m really trying to lean into pushing LEM content in the direction of the top level Q --&gt; VP --&gt; Response model)</p><p>Do you like the idea? IF so, what about something very general and wide?<em> </em>I&apos;m thinking: &quot;Does US history demonstrate a failure of free market capitalism?&quot;</p><p><em>Going to be great when we can start and then adjust the Question as needed as we go!</em></p>"},{"title":"Exploring how LEMS are blowing my mind (and not in a good way)","lem_id":110,"created_at":"2023-12-27T07:28:34.659Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Haha, yes! Absooooluuuuutely. Our pendulum has swung far away from \\\"structure\\\". No matter what, I imagine what we're experiencing as \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"an inevitable yet healthy\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" tension. Certainly it's more likely as you stumble into \\\"world view\\\" questions, which are harder, but more fun/profound/incredible? Funny that it should happen on this question :P. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like everything you wrote here and think it perfectly highlights the need for constant vigilance in using \\\"the loop\\\" you mention of \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"Question --> Explanation --> Response --> LEM ... --> Question\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". The \\\"...\\\" here is always going to require judgement calls and discipline to \\\"bring it back\\\". Explore, meander and ramble all you want, but \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"bold\"}],\"text\":\"bring it back!\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" An actual enforcement of the link of \\\"lem purpose\\\" to some outcome would help a lot, I think.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"kind of\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" did this on purpose in my response by putting something less-than-polite that brings in world view, which degrades the convo a bit and encourages you to do the same. I tried to imagine if there were \\\"stakes\\\" and I cared about dark patterns a lot more, what sort of answer would I give? Well, yeah, I'd probably want to give a response that was more dismissive and hints at world view. While keeping it cordial and healthy, not sure what to do with this ongoing, since I assume it'll happen a bunch.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"LEM Explosion = forgetting \\\"the loop\\\" and trying to answer every question in one place. \"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Haha, yes! Absooooluuuuutely. Our pendulum has swung far away from &quot;structure&quot;. No matter what, I imagine what we&apos;re experiencing as <strong>an inevitable yet healthy</strong> tension. Certainly it&apos;s more likely as you stumble into &quot;world view&quot; questions, which are harder, but more fun/profound/incredible? Funny that it should happen on this question :P. </p><p>I like everything you wrote here and think it perfectly highlights the need for constant vigilance in using &quot;the loop&quot; you mention of <strong>Question --&gt; Explanation --&gt; Response --&gt; LEM ... --&gt; Question</strong>. The &quot;...&quot; here is always going to require judgement calls and discipline to &quot;bring it back&quot;. Explore, meander and ramble all you want, but <strong>bring it back!</strong> An actual enforcement of the link of &quot;lem purpose&quot; to some outcome would help a lot, I think.</p><p>I <em>kind of</em> did this on purpose in my response by putting something less-than-polite that brings in world view, which degrades the convo a bit and encourages you to do the same. I tried to imagine if there were &quot;stakes&quot; and I cared about dark patterns a lot more, what sort of answer would I give? Well, yeah, I&apos;d probably want to give a response that was more dismissive and hints at world view. While keeping it cordial and healthy, not sure what to do with this ongoing, since I assume it&apos;ll happen a bunch.</p><p>LEM Explosion = forgetting &quot;the loop&quot; and trying to answer every question in one place. </p>"},{"title":"Share status on this question","lem_id":117,"created_at":"2023-12-29T19:15:36.485Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I incorporated my responses to you into my Explanation - I think they fit well there. Could edit it down some, but I'm okay with it overall.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I reduced my Response to just a Response.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I incorporated my responses to you into my Explanation - I think they fit well there. Could edit it down some, but I&apos;m okay with it overall.</p><p>I reduced my Response to just a Response.</p>"},{"title":"Explore not responding to responses a bit more","lem_id":118,"created_at":"2023-12-29T19:28:24.074Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"We were playing around with a best practice that said: Your Explanation shares the reasoning behind your position (or lack of position) with the world. Your Response addresses what you think about another User's Explanation, again for the world. If you want to respond to a Response, then go to LEMs.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"My problem with this is that I REALLY want to respond to your Response and to do so in LEMs is to bury it. Part of me still wants to think that I can add something to my Response to address yours. Right now, it would look something like this maybe:\"}]},{\"type\":\"blockquote\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Shane says: \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Let me translate that for you.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Translation: \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"X bad, but Paul opposes legislation! \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Right. Thanks for the summary, Shane. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For anyone that wants to understand \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"why\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" I oppose legislation, certainly anything as broad as is implied by this Question, I hope you will read my Explanation.\"}]}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It sort of works, as long as we are disciplined enough to not start exploding from there. (And nobody is that disciplined :))\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Here's the problem: Our current best practice let's each of have a \\\"parting shot\\\" at each other, and I still feel like we can/should engineer that away.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"It may be as simple (?) as allowing us to link LEMs in our responses? That would be my way of saying \\\"Hey world, if you are reading the engagement between me and Shane, I want to make sure you check out this particular LEM\\\" (The one where I point out that he took a cheap shot and he acknowledged that but for some reason left it there.)\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Or maybe a simpler version is that each of us has the option to highlight LEMs for the world in the context of the Question. \\\"This is a LEM that everybody should read that's interested in this engagement\\\" vs. all the LEMs serve their purpose and are no longer relevant, are off topic, or whatever. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If we had that feature, I would call you out on your cheap shot and highlight that LEM. If and when we resolved it, I might un-highlight that LEM. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Food for thought.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>We were playing around with a best practice that said: Your Explanation shares the reasoning behind your position (or lack of position) with the world. Your Response addresses what you think about another User&apos;s Explanation, again for the world. If you want to respond to a Response, then go to LEMs.</p><p>My problem with this is that I REALLY want to respond to your Response and to do so in LEMs is to bury it. Part of me still wants to think that I can add something to my Response to address yours. Right now, it would look something like this maybe:</p><blockquote><p>Shane says: <em>In a world where the free market is fundamentally disrupted, our minds are consistently prodded by a swathe of subconscious manipulation and large corporate technocrats meddle with our democracies, Paul puts skepticism of legislation foremost amongst his concerns!</em></p><p>Let me translate that for you.</p><p>Translation: <em>X bad, but Paul opposes legislation! </em></p><p>Right. Thanks for the summary, Shane. </p><p>For anyone that wants to understand <em>why</em> I oppose legislation, certainly anything as broad as is implied by this Question, I hope you will read my Explanation.</p></blockquote><p>It sort of works, as long as we are disciplined enough to not start exploding from there. (And nobody is that disciplined :))</p><p>Here&apos;s the problem: Our current best practice let&apos;s each of have a &quot;parting shot&quot; at each other, and I still feel like we can/should engineer that away.</p><p>It may be as simple (?) as allowing us to link LEMs in our responses? That would be my way of saying &quot;Hey world, if you are reading the engagement between me and Shane, I want to make sure you check out this particular LEM&quot; (The one where I point out that he took a cheap shot and he acknowledged that but for some reason left it there.)</p><p>Or maybe a simpler version is that each of us has the option to highlight LEMs for the world in the context of the Question. &quot;This is a LEM that everybody should read that&apos;s interested in this engagement&quot; vs. all the LEMs serve their purpose and are no longer relevant, are off topic, or whatever. </p><p>If we had that feature, I would call you out on your cheap shot and highlight that LEM. If and when we resolved it, I might un-highlight that LEM. </p><p>Food for thought.</p>"},{"title":"Trying a new analogy (cancer medication)","lem_id":46,"created_at":"2024-01-06T02:25:11.925Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I like it! While some of that can be useful for iterating and incorporating, I think we can call it.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"LEM OUT.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I like it! While some of that can be useful for iterating and incorporating, I think we can call it.</p><p>LEM OUT.</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2024-01-06T03:27:04.404Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yeah, I think so! Leaving this open.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Yeah, I think so! Leaving this open.</p>"},{"title":"Share status on this question","lem_id":117,"created_at":"2024-01-06T03:30:25.144Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm going through the LEMs now. After some convo today, I'm curious how to proceed. We have some specific spots to engage further on, which is nice, but I wonder how question refinement will affect them. We spent so long in this context arguing about world view that my original desires got a bit lost.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'll probably finish with LEMs, start a refinement then casually pursue the specific law engagements.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I&apos;m going through the LEMs now. After some convo today, I&apos;m curious how to proceed. We have some specific spots to engage further on, which is nice, but I wonder how question refinement will affect them. We spent so long in this context arguing about world view that my original desires got a bit lost.</p><p>I&apos;ll probably finish with LEMs, start a refinement then casually pursue the specific law engagements.</p>"},{"title":"Explore not responding to responses a bit more","lem_id":118,"created_at":"2024-01-06T03:33:35.772Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Still chewing on this. I'm not sure about anything specifically designed to address the \\\"parting shot\\\". Seems like it's natural and could just be discouraged or ignored?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Purposefully highlighting the mechanic muddies the contexts a bit for me and LEMs just become extended responses.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Still chewing on this. I&apos;m not sure about anything specifically designed to address the &quot;parting shot&quot;. Seems like it&apos;s natural and could just be discouraged or ignored?</p><p>Purposefully highlighting the mechanic muddies the contexts a bit for me and LEMs just become extended responses.</p>"},{"title":"Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism","lem_id":109,"created_at":"2024-01-06T03:41:22.232Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yeah! Make questions great again.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"In a funny contrast, since we're approaching the highest of levels, I'd pick a few specific mechanics, like outsourcing of certain job types, levels of inequality, monopolies running amok. Happy to keep the US at the center, but not necessary.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Yeah! Make questions great again.</p><p>In a funny contrast, since we&apos;re approaching the highest of levels, I&apos;d pick a few specific mechanics, like outsourcing of certain job types, levels of inequality, monopolies running amok. Happy to keep the US at the center, but not necessary.</p>"},{"title":"Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism","lem_id":109,"created_at":"2024-01-06T18:02:33.266Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Okay, I created that Question \"},{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"169\",\"textContent\":\"here\",\"users\":[]}},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Let's pick it up there and close this thing out!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Okay, I created that Question <exu-link questionId=\"169\" textContent=\"here\" users=\"\"></exu-link>. </p><p>Let&apos;s pick it up there and close this thing out!</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2024-01-06T18:04:09.858Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I've joined you in going more broad in a few places. Still waiting for you to go more specific with me here! Not trying to be cocky. It's just that I think specific is where progress is likely to be made one way or the other.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I&apos;ve joined you in going more broad in a few places. Still waiting for you to go more specific with me here! Not trying to be cocky. It&apos;s just that I think specific is where progress is likely to be made one way or the other.</p>"},{"title":"Share status on this question","lem_id":117,"created_at":"2024-01-06T18:12:55.078Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There is a LEM here where we agreed to go to a more broad context: \\\"Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism\\\" I've followed through on that by creating a new Q and linking it from that LEM.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There is a another LEM here where we agreed to go more specific: \\\"Break out specific questions about current laws\\\". I'm waiting for you to suggest one specific item there.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I am okay moving forward on both of those fronts, but other than that do not expect to spend a lot more time on this particular Q.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>There is a LEM here where we agreed to go to a more broad context: &quot;Discussing specific critiques of free market capitalism&quot; I&apos;ve followed through on that by creating a new Q and linking it from that LEM.</p><p>There is a another LEM here where we agreed to go more specific: &quot;Break out specific questions about current laws&quot;. I&apos;m waiting for you to suggest one specific item there.</p><p>I am okay moving forward on both of those fronts, but other than that do not expect to spend a lot more time on this particular Q.</p>"},{"title":"Explore not responding to responses a bit more","lem_id":118,"created_at":"2024-01-06T18:26:59.046Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You make good points, but I'm still attracted to the general idea. That said,I don't like the title of this LEM anymore for what I'm about to describe, so join me in this new one, and let's close this one out.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>You make good points, but I&apos;m still attracted to the general idea. That said,I don&apos;t like the title of this LEM anymore for what I&apos;m about to describe, so join me in this new one, and let&apos;s close this one out.</p>"},{"title":"Explore not responding to responses a bit more","lem_id":118,"created_at":"2024-01-06T18:47:21.529Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"New one is \\\"Explore public flagging LEMS\\\"\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>New one is &quot;Explore public flagging LEMS&quot;</p>"},{"title":"Explore Public Flagging LEMs","lem_id":138,"created_at":"2024-01-06T19:01:46.044Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There are LEMs that are clearly for public consumption, LEMS that are not, and LEMs that start out that way and end up not.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This is a key distinction to support for public readability.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"For example, anybody interested in this Q does \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"not\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" need to read this LEM I'm writing now, because it obviously off-topic,\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm picturing the following. Just has we each have an independent \\\"status\\\" switch on a LEM, we each have a \\\"Flag for Public\\\" (FFP) switch, which either side can change at any time.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The meaning of this is \\\"Anyone interested in our engagement on this Q probably should read this LEM\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"If \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"either \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"side is \\\"yes\\\", then the LEM is highlighted as \\\"of public interest\\\". \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"LEMS where both sides are \\\"no\\\" are still visible to everyone (they may still be of interest) but are sorted/grouped/lowlighted in a way that makes them clearly optional reading.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A LEM like \\\"Pointing out a misspelling\\\" may have FFP \\\"off\\\" on both sides the whole time, because who really cares?\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"A LEM like \\\"Explore possible disconnect on our use of the term 'Blurk'\\\" will likely start it's life as FFP \\\"on\\\". If it resolves to both side's satisfaction with updates to VPs and Rs, or maybe with the creation of new Qs that are linked in the VPs and/or Rs, then both sides might decide to turn off FFP. Because at that point, the LEM may show \\\"how we got there\\\", but the \\\"there\\\" is already represented in the formal structure, so it is not that important.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"This happens to solve the \\\"parting shot\\\" problem too. If I feel like you misrepresented or strawmanned my VP in your R, then it makes perfect sense for me to raise that in a LEM and flag it for the public.  If that resolves itself in a way that we're both satisfied with, it makes perfect sense to turn FFP off. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The ideal will \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"probably\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" be for all LEMs to end up closed by both sides \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"and \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"not FFP. But when things are a work in progress, or when the sides fail to amicably close out LEMs, it may be appropriate and very helpful to flag things for the public.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Uh oh. I'm in love with this now and have to have it. What do you think?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>There are LEMs that are clearly for public consumption, LEMS that are not, and LEMs that start out that way and end up not.</p><p>This is a key distinction to support for public readability.</p><p>For example, anybody interested in this Q does <em>not</em> need to read this LEM I&apos;m writing now, because it obviously off-topic,</p><p>I&apos;m picturing the following. Just has we each have an independent &quot;status&quot; switch on a LEM, we each have a &quot;Flag for Public&quot; (FFP) switch, which either side can change at any time.</p><p>The meaning of this is &quot;Anyone interested in our engagement on this Q probably should read this LEM&quot;. </p><p>If <em>either </em>side is &quot;yes&quot;, then the LEM is highlighted as &quot;of public interest&quot;. </p><p>LEMS where both sides are &quot;no&quot; are still visible to everyone (they may still be of interest) but are sorted/grouped/lowlighted in a way that makes them clearly optional reading.</p><p>A LEM like &quot;Pointing out a misspelling&quot; may have FFP &quot;off&quot; on both sides the whole time, because who really cares?</p><p>A LEM like &quot;Explore possible disconnect on our use of the term &apos;Blurk&apos;&quot; will likely start it&apos;s life as FFP &quot;on&quot;. If it resolves to both side&apos;s satisfaction with updates to VPs and Rs, or maybe with the creation of new Qs that are linked in the VPs and/or Rs, then both sides might decide to turn off FFP. Because at that point, the LEM may show &quot;how we got there&quot;, but the &quot;there&quot; is already represented in the formal structure, so it is not that important.</p><p>This happens to solve the &quot;parting shot&quot; problem too. If I feel like you misrepresented or strawmanned my VP in your R, then it makes perfect sense for me to raise that in a LEM and flag it for the public.  If that resolves itself in a way that we&apos;re both satisfied with, it makes perfect sense to turn FFP off. </p><p>The ideal will <em>probably</em> be for all LEMs to end up closed by both sides <em>and </em>not FFP. But when things are a work in progress, or when the sides fail to amicably close out LEMs, it may be appropriate and very helpful to flag things for the public.</p><p>Uh oh. I&apos;m in love with this now and have to have it. What do you think?</p>"},{"title":"Explore Public Flagging LEMs","lem_id":138,"created_at":"2024-01-06T20:45:43.809Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Generally want/need some way to orient people (both writers and readers) within this space. I'm not as concerned with readers, though, because it seems secondary to VP and Response.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Generally want/need some way to orient people (both writers and readers) within this space. I&apos;m not as concerned with readers, though, because it seems secondary to VP and Response.</p>"},{"title":"Share status on this question","lem_id":117,"created_at":"2024-01-06T20:52:11.478Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Yeah, I agree! I'm surprised that you made that question (opened a refinement for it btw) and not one about regulation/legislation, which we identified much earlier. Is the capitalism stuff just more interesting?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Yeah, I agree! I&apos;m surprised that you made that question (opened a refinement for it btw) and not one about regulation/legislation, which we identified much earlier. Is the capitalism stuff just more interesting?</p>"},{"title":"Share status on this question","lem_id":117,"created_at":"2024-01-06T20:57:36.437Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Dunno. Probably just confused as well at this point. Even ExU has limits!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Dunno. Probably just confused as well at this point. Even ExU has limits!</p>"},{"title":"Explore Public Flagging LEMs","lem_id":138,"created_at":"2024-01-06T20:58:36.994Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"No it's not. Read my post again but slower.\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>No it&apos;s not. Read my post again but slower.</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2024-01-06T21:34:40.838Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I made two to start, so let's get at it here, if they make sense. Not sure what was cocky about this. Disclaimers are weird when you don't notice the source initially!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>I made two to start, so let&apos;s get at it here, if they make sense. Not sure what was cocky about this. Disclaimers are weird when you don&apos;t notice the source initially!</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2024-01-06T21:37:11.038Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Made two where?\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Made two where?</p>"},{"title":"Explore Public Flagging LEMs","lem_id":138,"created_at":"2024-01-06T22:01:14.296Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Sorry, that was rude. \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"To explain (not justify): I was pitching something highly specific and oriented to readers. I took your response as \\\"Well, we do need \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"something\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"\\\" (meaning, \\\"but not what \"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"marks\":[{\"type\":\"italic\"}],\"text\":\"you\"},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" just described\\\"), and \\\"Readers aren't that important\\\" (meaning, \\\"your emphasis on public was wrong\\\"). So I read two negative inferences into your response and felt discouraged that my suggestion hadn't been the homerun I was anticipating. That led me to the big-headed conclusion that you must not have read it carefully enough.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You were supposed to figure all that out from my pithy reply! \"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"Anyway, let's just track the idea elsewhere (trust me, I won't forget it).\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"I'm leaving this as a public apology and hopefully a reminder to be better. 🙏\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>Sorry, that was rude. </p><p>To explain (not justify): I was pitching something highly specific and oriented to readers. I took your response as &quot;Well, we do need <em>something</em>&quot; (meaning, &quot;but not what <em>you</em> just described&quot;), and &quot;Readers aren&apos;t that important&quot; (meaning, &quot;your emphasis on public was wrong&quot;). So I read two negative inferences into your response and felt discouraged that my suggestion hadn&apos;t been the homerun I was anticipating. That led me to the big-headed conclusion that you must not have read it carefully enough.</p><p>You were supposed to figure all that out from my pithy reply! </p><p>Anyway, let&apos;s just track the idea elsewhere (trust me, I won&apos;t forget it).</p><p>I&apos;m leaving this as a public apology and hopefully a reminder to be better. 🙏</p>"},{"title":"Explore Public Flagging LEMs","lem_id":138,"created_at":"2024-01-22T03:53:58.527Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"👊 tyty! Yeah I was definitely short, but it was 99% because I read this as relating to something else we had discussed, which was not the case. A weird blurring of lines too because we were going to meet later that day.\"}]},{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"The public flag will be a very good short-term feature cuz it'll be a breeze to implement and add a fair bit of value! I'm staring at a full laptop screen worth of \\\"DONE/DONE\\\" lems here and seeing the value :D\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>👊 tyty! Yeah I was definitely short, but it was 99% because I read this as relating to something else we had discussed, which was not the case. A weird blurring of lines too because we were going to meet later that day.</p><p>The public flag will be a very good short-term feature cuz it&apos;ll be a breeze to implement and add a fair bit of value! I&apos;m staring at a full laptop screen worth of &quot;DONE/DONE&quot; lems here and seeing the value :D</p>"},{"title":"Break out specific questions about current laws","lem_id":108,"created_at":"2024-01-22T03:55:13.694Z","user_id":2,"user_handle":"@Shane","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"You responded to them, but for context it's \"},{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"170\",\"textContent\":\"OSP in Canada\",\"users\":[]}},{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\" and \"},{\"type\":\"exuLink\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\",\"questionId\":\"171\",\"textContent\":\"FTC online ad regulations\",\"users\":[]}}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>You responded to them, but for context it&apos;s <exu-link questionId=\"170\" textContent=\"OSP in Canada\" users=\"\"></exu-link> and <exu-link questionId=\"171\" textContent=\"FTC online ad regulations\" users=\"\"></exu-link></p>"},{"title":"Follow up on \"delete test\" lem","lem_id":180,"created_at":"2024-01-22T07:24:32.394Z","user_id":1,"user_handle":"@Paul","content":"{\"type\":\"doc\",\"content\":[{\"type\":\"paragraph\",\"attrs\":{\"diffType\":\"\"},\"content\":[{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"There was a \\\"delete test\\\" LEM you created. I hit delete. It seems to be gone. Hope that was the test!\"}]}]}","htmlText":"<p>There was a &quot;delete test&quot; LEM you created. I hit delete. It seems to be gone. Hope that was the test!</p>"}]}

Does this image produce a public link?