Hacker News Reader

Comment by kgwxd | Hacker News Reader

As an adult, who despises all those apps, I don't want to grant government the power to make that decision for me.

An an adult, do you also believe seat belt laws are a bad thing?

Yes, I do. Its just another way that cops can pull you over for bullshit charges and revenue enhancement.

I remember in my state, it was initially only a citation that couldnt be pulled over on. Then they flipped that and started pulling over for it. Why? Pure fucking money grab.

Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

Is this satire?

Is school busses without seatbelts satire?

Are motorcycles without seatbelts or harnesses satire?

All im saying is that an adult should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt or not in their own vehicle. And also, shouldnt get fined for choosing to not wear one.

BTW, i wear one when i drive or am a passenger. And if im driving, i ask everyone to wear one.

> All im saying is that an adult should be able to choose to wear a seatbelt or not in their own vehicle.

Millions of deaths and injuries avoided as a result of seatbelts obligatory in many countries around the world do not share your world view.

https://unece.org/sustainable-development/news/unece-celebra...

So, you dont care about children on schoolbusses? None of them have seatbelts.

And motorcycles are explicitly allowed, and have no restraints or harnesses. Mopeds, same. Scooters, same. Bicycles, same.

Adults *should* have the right to do risky behaviors that increases the risk of bodily injury. But no matter the link you put forth, doesnt explain why fucking schoolbusses that transport years 6-18 dont have seatbelts.

You seem like a very angry individual based on how you respond to very normal dialogue here. I suggest therapy.

Secondly, seatbelts are not just about you, genius. If you are thrown from a car you could hit something or someone else, endangering others. Thus, seatbelts are not only for your safety, but for others as well.

Please take a few breaths and go outside.

> Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

Except who pays for your million-dollar reconstructive surgery and rehab? I don't suppose you will cover that out of pocket to avoid burdening your fellow insurance payers with your reckless behavior?

>Me not wearing a seatbelt means I risk getting splattered. Not you, or anyone else.

Physics says otherwise. In a collision you don't decide where you body is yeeted and your skull could end inside the skull of a passenger using his seatbelt. Don't be a moron. https://youtube.com/shorts/n2yLMGA_YSA?si=AlvRgfpb-PJxGCBw

This cannot be a genuine take from a real person.

personally yes, that kind of choice should belong to the individual not the government. besides that though the laws are nonsensical why is a seatbelt required in a car not not in a bus, why are motorcycles even allowed at all?

This argument falls apart for countries with socialized healthcare.

As long as all people are paying for your dumb decisions, it is reasonable to expect the government to reduce the frequency of dumb decisions by adequate means.

I notice that these sorts of justifications for increased paternalism as a consequence of socialized services come up in public discourse all the time but never seems to be mentioned by advocates when proposing these socialized systems. It should be mentioned up front as a significant cost as part of the package, it comes with strings attached like the government telling you how to live your life. Interesting that people don't seem to want to mention that up front.

I support socialized medicine and I completely agree with you, we should be honest about the fact that it requires some level of regulatory coercion to work well.

Enforcing a healthy diet and exercise would have a vastly larger impact than any seatbelt laws in terms of reducing health care costs. Seatbelts and smoking always seem to be about as far as the advocates are willing to go though.

This argument is lacking nuance. Just because there are some instances of paternalism one is prepared to accept, doesn't mean that every possible paternalist policy is always okay. Being in favour of some instances but not all, is not a logical inconsistency. We can talk about each instance on a case by case basis.

Seatbelt laws have very limited impact outside vehicle safety. Nor does it open a slippery slope that leads to buses and trains and elevators and dining chairs and beds getting their own seatbelts.

Regulation on speech threatens the basis of democracy. The fact that the countries pushing them most successfully (UK, Australia) are also the ones with serious freedom of speech problems compared to their Western peers should also tell you that no, they will not stop at throwing you in jail for memes on twitter.

But speech is not the same as design you're conflating two things and making it a non sequitur.

Yes. And I always wear my seat belt.

> I don't want to grant government the power to make that decision for me.

The alternative is letting multi-trillion dollar companies make those decisions for you, which they do with the explicit intent to manipulate you AND to push the politics of the currently sitting government of the United States.

Meta has repeatedly censored LGBT content, with no warning or stated policy change, since the government changed. All without the formal legislative process. Good chance the Trump admin didn't even ask for this, Meta just did it pre-emptively to suck up to them.

Opposing some basic restrictions on addictive and exploitative features and the requirement to offer users a standard reverse-chronological-followed feed without "The Algorithm", does not make you an Anti-Government Free Thinker. You're the exact kind of "sheep" Zuckerberg & the Trump administration want you to be.

You might have the self-awareness and impulse control to stop yourself from getting addicted to these apps, but the majority of the world's population does not.

These giant companies pour millions upon millions of dollars into engineering their services to be as "engaging" (read: addictive) as possible with the specific goal of making users spend more time on them.

Against that, the average person has no chance. The power balance is hugely uneven.

A responsible government which actually cares for its people has a duty to protect them from abuse like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com