Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamnothere | Hacker News Reader

How will you measure purely psychological addiction using a neutral process that can’t be easily captured by political interests?

That said, I like the idea of an option. Options are good!

View on HN

Clearly there is a fuzzy line of demarcation. I was thinking for a simple opt-out of any rec-sys

While I’m uncomfortable with any legislation regarding the presentation of speech, in fact it’s definitely unconstitutional, this isn’t bad if you ignore the 1A issues. Hard to ignore that though

Why do some Americans build their whole political and philosophical personality off of 1A maximalism? I'm an American, and it's a great principle. Freedom of speech deserves to be enshrined in the Constitution as a Good Thing, up there with the pursuit of happiness, freedom of the press, and all else. But this idea that nothing that ever even tangentially inconvenience's someone's (or some megacorporation's) expression is a legislative no-go, is a weirdly religious amount of conviction in an abstract principle. This principle, like every other in the Constitution, must carry finite weight.

The amendment process is there for a reason. We must begin to use (and respect) it again, or fall as a country. That’s my take.

Not an american but I would rather enshrine freedom of communication, and just explode the corporations I dont like because they suck.

Theres no "freedom to be a corporation".

In fact just end the limitation of corporate liability and let the courts sort it out.

A lot simpler than targeting a random expression of communication in protcols courts dont understand.

This would be 100% constitutional. Corporations are a legal construct, the law gave them and the law can take them away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com