I feel like the last year of 'quarantine' for most of the Western world has made people more comfortable with authoritarian governments and actions. It's rather alarming how widespread and quickly this change in ideology has happened.
Like literally everyone else in tech who knows how the sausage gets made, I'm appalled by the teams of Ph.Ds which exist solely to exploit the dopamine response of children. However, it never would have ever crossed my mind to jump from "here's a particular problem" to "the government should control how much of a specific activity your child can do at home"
The obvious scenarios are alcohol, nicotine & drugs. As a parent of young children, there are addition parallels between Minecraft / Roblox / Alcohol / Cigarettes.
To a real degree, more effort is put into making gaming deliberately additive - although flavored vaping (bubble gum, cotton candy, etc) would like to enter the conversation.
Flavored vaping products are for sure bad. I'll happily give you that. I'll also give you sugar, processed food, alcohol, cigarettes, McDonalds, and a near never ending supply of things we regularly consume (food, entertainment, or other).
I wouldn't petition the government to control access to any of them. I tend to trust the millions of individual personal (or parental) decisions over the long haul more than I do centrally planned, top-down mandates.
My belief is that's a reasonable debate with very valid points on both sides. At a personal level, kids 2-12 are Addicted to games (Minecraft, Roblox, etc). Taking the games away has the same impact as taking away narcotics from an addict.
The unregulated ability of these platforms to target children (and they do), seems very analogous to pre-regulated cigarettes, drug, and alcohol marketing.
I wager more psychological studies are done on driving MAU, rapid viral adoption, and upping Click Through Rates than were done for nicotine.
Seems insane to suggest that adults would prefer the taste of ashtray over apple or orange (I like fruity aromas). I mostly vape without flavoring nowadays because I'm lazy, but I just don't get the mindset. Adults like sugar, sweets, lemonade and all that stuff just as much as children do. Some seem to really like the taste of cigarettes, but I think for the most part people are just more comfortable to say "I like the taste" instead of "I'm addicted to nicotine", because inhaling burnt plant matter along with the diffused active agents and aromatic compounds generally isn't good for taste. Weed also tastes much better vaped.
It's honestly nice to see a not totally incompetent government try a novel policy with good intentions. It's welcome break from the firehose of our own government making policies that seem to only target the poor and minorities.
You can read about it here from their own page:
https://careers.king.com/kingdom-news/data-at-king/
> That experiment is typical of how we learn from data at King. We have about 150 people working in data roles, out of a total workforce of 2,000. They come from a range of backgrounds. Many are from the games industry, of course, but we also bring in lots of recruits straight from university.
> These people will have just done their masters or PhD in a wide range of disciplines. Many of our team studied statistics, physics or computer science but we also have people who came from theoretical biology because work on DNA sequencing in that field has produced a lot of data-sophisticated people. Others are behavioural psychologists or behavioural economists.
Now in the specific example they choose to highlight they saw that making the game less frustrating made people spend more money. However if making the game more frustrating turned out to make more money since users bought more powerups then they absolutely would do it.
“ The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,””
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...
Australia was a model for success, until a cab driver in Sydney contracted the delta variant. Much of the country is now in total lockdown, while the army patrols Sydney streets and daily COVID cases continue to rise exponentially, far exceeding any previous COVID outbreak in Australia. There is no ten billion dollar program to develop vaccines for new variants, no path to eradication, and no way out of the continuing crisis except to ignore it. Therefore, I expect that this situation of mandatory quarantines, mandatory vaccination proof, mandatory negative test result proof, and multiple new-variant outbreaks and lockdowns annually will continue until politically untenable, and I conclude that countries instituting hard lockdowns are not places where I want to live or travel, until they eventually reform.
Australia knows it can just... get vaccines right? They are sitting at 27.1% fully vaccinated vs 52% in the US. What's their excuse?
The five key reasons that come to mind, after witnessing events unfold:
1. Sitting at a lower global priority on the vaccine purchase list for Pfizer due to very low case numbers.
2. Government deciding that the bulk of vaccines should be produced locally (likely due to a combination of sourcing being difficult, and for national security reasons). This inevitably means taking a bit longer to ramp production up.
3. The Australian Immunization Advisory Group declaring that the vaccine produced locally should be used on people aged 60+, while Pfizer would be the preferred vaccine for everyone else.
4. No vaccine injury scheme. If you are unlucky and get a rare blood clotting disorder, you have to wear the full treatment cost. And because of #3, you have to see a doctor and sign a waiver to get AstraZeneca. (This has since been relaxed now and does not have to be a doctor consultation. You can just sign the waiver at the point of vaccination)
5. Government not pushing as hard, as it in hindsight should have, to purchase more Pfizer. This is a difficult call for any government to have made at the start of the pandemic though and really ties back into #1. The locally produced vaccine would have easily covered the entire population, but the chance of blood clotting really did a number on this strategy.
If I buy a car, there's a warranty on it. Why doesn't the government stand by what it's recommending people inject?
Ahh. This one is good old pure utter incompetence plus possibly some good old corruption thrown in to the mix as well.
As much as a I understand, the gov decided not to buy Pfizer early in the pandemic since they could produce AstraZeneca plus an early vaccine candidate developed at University of Queensland at CSL (Australian BioTech company).
Instead of placing multiple orders with multiple providers, they put all their faith into CSL and it's trials.
Turns out, the vaccine at University of Queensland returned false positives of HIV cases. Stage 2/3 trials never occurred.
AstraZeneca later turned out to have side effects that quickly led to vaccine-hesitancy. By that time, Pfizer had supply issues since the US went full swing in to the vaccination drive.
There were some reports that the PM's mates were high up in CSL. I am not entirely sure of that bit but it doesn't seem unlikely.
"From September 13, NSW residents that are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms.
Residents of hotspots can leave home for an hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour, while people in other areas can meet five others outdoors.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the vaccination milestone of six million reached this week would allow for a small renewal in freedoms for residents with the jab."
Freedom is never granted, only earned.
I don't get the desire to see everything as black and white and boil everything problem down to a slippery slope fallacy.
The topic in question was whether Covid restrictions has made people more comfortable with other authoritarian measures which are implemented to benefit society as a whole. I actually think it's a very apt point and I'm surprised you don't see the connection.
If you are only looking for a cartoon villain and not, say, yourself, you might be caught flat footed when it arrives at your door.
Comparing this kind of thing to what China is doing is drawing a false equivalency. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.
But now would be a good time to roll back all the temporary 9/11 stuff, if there are any politicians wanting to see some trust lent to talk about 'temporary'. Hard to see a better occasion for it ever coming up, with the 20th anniversary in a couple weeks.
About the WW2 example, I was surprised how much was still on the books and even in continuing 'emergency' use, reading https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Leviathan-Critical-Government-...
The U.S. legal system is by no means perfect but there are very few examples of real abuse that go unchecked for long periods. U.S. history is full of overreach that is curtailed relatively quickly, although it can go on for years at a time.
The Patriot Act was not renewed. Very little over the overreach inspired by 9/11 is still in place. Even mass surveillance has been curtailed and restricted to a large degree (although not enough by my estimation).
I think it's status-quo bias to look at this picture and think the high-order bit is that yes, temporary emergency measures were temporary. In the bigger picture there are dozens of separate national emergencies getting repeatedly renewed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i....
No, the West isn't find. Mild tyranny isn't cool and how temporary these measures are is debated. If they actually were temporary, why is there no restriction for how long they can last? How much longer will it go? Nobody knows.
This is a loophole in our constitutions, they can use "emergency" situations to suspend civil rights indefinitely. This very same method has been used many times in history to establish dictatorships and totalitarian systems, so it's a very legitimate concern.
And the U.S. has a legal system unlike any other country, that has proven itself able to prevent long-standing and unjustified overreach. The Supreme Court is incredibly powerful and has the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, and has done so many times.
People should be concerned about this issue and pay close attention. But there is very little reason to be very concerned at all. These mask mandates, or even requiring vaccine proof, is not a cover story for a take over of the U.S.
These are extremely rational and justified, and even mild, measures being taken to address a very real and easily verified threat.
The U.S. is not Australia. No one's first amendment rights are being curtailed. Anything anyone wants to say is perfectly accessible to the public. No one is being fined.
And the U.S. is not China or a a banana republic and there's absolutely no evidence that we're in any danger of becoming like either.
Both things can be simultaneously true.
I think you've implicitly agreed that the pandemic countermeasures were authoritarian, and this thread is saying "authoritarian bad." But we all saw what happened to places that delayed or denied countermeasures. If authoritarian bad, then that questions whether non-authoritarian is actually good in this case.
>"Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. "
I have not seen any (even centrist) libertarians supporting these measures; having checked the most mainstream libertarian publication (Reason). Additionally, 'very libertarian people' are minarchists, who definitely don't support these measures.
Have you actually seen/heard 'very libertarian people' endorsing these measures? Is it possible that the parent is projecting their beliefs onto others?
Very-libertarians? That’s a good point; I’m not sure I’ve seen any. But it’s hard to know who among us is very-libertarian except those who say so, which may be a small subset.
"Ahh, they fell for the temporary fallacy!"
I'm not even "very" libertarian at all, yet I find the "temporary" (which is not so very temporary) and "mild" (which is not so very mild) authoritarian measures absolutely reprehensible.
Just saying something is a false equivalency doesn't make it so. Both instances have the government putting limits on your autonomy in unprecedented ways. The government is very boldly telling you what you can and cannot do and how much of it when allowed. I completely reject your characterization of totalitarianism as "mild" and "making complete sense."
Most Libertarians are extremist libertarians in my view.
Mild? Australians can't travel more than 5km from their homes. For essential purposes only. Vaccinated Australians can only leave their homes for 2 hours a day (unvaxed 1 hour a day).
Your argument is already flawed. We don't have vaccines available to everyone in the US yet.
In Oregon we were on a very bad trajectory in the last two weeks with hospitals full and "elective" medical procedures suspended in some areas (my family being directly effected by this), that is now being deflected a bit by the renewed mask mandate. And in America we're very fortunate with how easy access we have to vaccines, other places aren't as lucky so they have to enact harsher measures...
I've complained in other spaces about this, but it really feels like we're reliving the 1918 flu again. People dealt with restrictions the first year, but got fed up the second year. Costing lots of human lives.
My problem is simply the loose definition. Kate Brown didn't even say that much, I don't think. But if that's the metric, it should be easy enough to say so, and define it. E.g. "When ICU bed occupancy is below 90% and has declined for three consecutive weeks, the mandate is lifted."
I think many people would quibble less about the mandates if they weren't open-ended.
There’s a newsworthy virus (usually SARS-like) every 2-5 years. There are notable “variants” every few months. The perceived risk of COVID has a lot to do with reporting, which is fickle at best. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands and we basically don’t care.
>temporary
Nixon’s closing the Gold window and Bush’s GWOT come to mind as substantial counter-examples. I don’t foresee the US politburo giving up on their newfound unlimited and totally arbitrary authority so long as their appointed brain trust says it’s for your own good. Their subjects might start to ignore them, though.
Faced with this, it's not surprising to me that many people would see a more authoritarian government to be preferable to a laissez faire approach that requires the vast majority of individuals to make reasonably good choices for the collective and understand the wider implications of their behavior.
It would be ironic if the right wing shrieking for 'freedom' ends up backlashing on all of us because they've simultaneously demonstrated that we're not mature enough to handle that level of freedom.
Half of the US is up in arms about it, for better or worse. I think you'd have a hard time imposing anything on the US.
The other half doesn't think immunizations are authoritarian, just science.
Maybe 1% of the loud and attention grabbing people on either side of the isle wants to impose things on the other just for the sake of imposing them.
So not exactly.
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7576955/coronavirus-vaccine-passp...
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/8104692/canada-getting-proof-of-v...