Claims in the lawsuit seem sketchy, and I don't think they will win.
It is probably not true that ChatGPT has resulted in an increase in murders and suicides, and certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this. It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth".
But I also don't think they expect to win. They just want to show that they're doing something to fight tech companies and AI.
This is closer to the cases where girlfriends or spouses spent weeks trying to get their person to kill themself. Having a clearly defined log of repeatedly telling someone how and to kill themself is to my non lawyer eyes just the teeniest bit worse.
Iâm no lawyer though so maybe potato po-kill your spouse with a claw hammer-tato. They do sound very similar. Please tell me more.
Do you have a link to a transcript where that happened?
In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.
Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media.
The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"
So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, theyâd just be like âwell technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess itâs ok!â
When the repository has large arrows pointing to kill your {var} with customized pamphlets outlining the steps and highlighting mistakes you specifically might make based on your post history Iâm betting a judge or jury might consider you an accomplice at that point.
Weâre already seeing section 230 protections being defeated in court for targeted feeds, now add itemized instructions on committing felonyâs at scale personalized. Hahahahaha. Hope they IPO quickly.
This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems.
If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?
const platitudes = ['Good point!', 'You're absolutely right.', 'I agree, let's explore this idea further.', 'This plan is a good idea'];
var prompt;
var response = "Hello, AI here, how can I help you?";
while (true) {
prompt = window.prompt(response);
response = platitudes[Math.floor(Math.random() * platitudes.length)];
}
Iâve fired guns. Never to kill things. Iâve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldnât endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose
guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped
you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal
whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
Sam Altman has been running a personal PR campaign against himself for three years now. Itâs tremendously popular to take pot shots at him, which means launching an investigation or lawsuit against OpenAI is probably politically expedient even if it goes nowhere.
While I generally lean toward the AI skeptical side, at least for more extreme claims on near-term LLM capability, growth and time frames, I'm not at all a fan of this. It seems like political grandstanding and unlikely to net much in the way of meaningful harm reduction.
If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.
It's fine ya'll... they'll get a call from their real Leader tonight. It's complete political grandstanding so someone can get their name in the news and on the phone with someone more important.
The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like
aiding and abetting violence: books on the topic since the 5th century BCE
economic disruption: like the printing press
copyright theft: printing tech also makes that far easier
displaces creativity: this was Socrates' objection to reading and writing
misinformation: both techs turbocharge all info, correct or not
environmental impact: e.g. deforestation
amplifies bias: this is a common purpose of writing things down
atrophy of skills: Socrates said reading would damage memory skills
concentration of power: writing was tightly controlled by powerful interests for their leverage and protection
Unless you also want to roll back writing and reading, the starting point for critiques of AI should be the differences in threat between it and writing. A difference in magnitude is a minimum. If you also think that writing was a mistake, I honor your consistency.
> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word
Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesnât mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.
It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag.
Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible.
Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, banning data centers and taking on populist anti-tech positions that Texas wouldn't dare (because they want the investment).
As a lifelong citizen of Texas, I would emphasize the decades-long renewable energy expansion has been happening _despite_ our political leadership, not because of it.
The fact that itâs easier to build stuff in Texasâwhether itâs oil rigs or solar farmsâis related to the political leadership. There may be no intention to facilitate renewables, but intentions and effects are two quite different things.
This isnât really true. FL population has exploded so much with high earners that theyâre talking about getting rid of property taxes, and Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth.
The interesting thing about living in a big city in Texas (and now basically all the big cities in TX lean left, not just Austin) is that the tension between city governments and the state, while frustrating at times and definitely dangerous for certain populations (I know folks with transgender kids who have moved out of TX solely for that reason), actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
For example, you can look at the housing crises in most CA cities brought on by NIMBY liberal policies, and while Austin is still very expensive, they (IMO) took the only sane approach to skyrocketing housing costs by actually building a shit ton of housing over the past few years. Austin passed a plastic bag ban a while back that was eventually overturned by the state legislature, but in the meantime a lot of people still bring their own reusable bags (stores can still charge for bags) and I've noticed much less bag pollution in creaks and streams compared to 15 years ago.
Of course, it remains to be seen what happens in the near future. The Republican party in TX is now fully showing their complete moral bankruptcy by nominating the criminal Ken Paxton for Senate, so we'll see if they fall further down the personality cult or if they eventually break.
Blue city in red state has been a winning combination for at least a decade. As you say, however, the recent push towards criminalizing random shit has started corrupting that balance. There are simply too many voters who are fine tearing everything down if it hurts the other team more than theirs. Democrats have those in the far left. But in the GOP, that wing controls the party.
> actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
This is true in Georgia as well. There has generally been a productive working relationship between the Democratic mayor in Atlanta and the typically republican/conservative democrat governor. That includes Kemp and Dinkins today. Back in 2017, former Mayor Shirley Franklin--who was very popular and highly effective--endorsed independent Mary Norwood for mayor over democrat Keisha Lance-Bottoms: https://www.ajc.com/news/former-atlanta-mayor-franklin-endor.... (The mayoral election is theoretically non-partisan, but the candidates do have party affiliations outside the election.)
I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research arenât exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy.
Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
i live in FL and i think the banning data centers thing is also just political posturing - we are in hurricane alley after all. i really don't think anyone was seriously considering building an AI data center in like St. John's County or whatever
If anything Florida (Desantis in particular) more closely resembles traditional conservatism in the US, as opposed to MAGA populism. I think, or hope, that's a good thing in the long run as AI shapes up to be a horseshoe political issue.
Florida, at least for local Florida stuff, like what GP is talking about, has had R governor, senate, and house for 25+ years. With a supermajority R for most of that I think.
Not really anymore. The house seats are 20R and 8D, they haven't voted blue for president since Obama, and haven't elected a democrat as governor since the 90s. Voter registration is also heavily skewed republican.
> Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit on Monday against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the AI startupâs ChatGPT is unsafe and that the company misled the public about associated risks.
The suit contends that ChatGPT poses risks to children and is responsible for a âlitany of harms,â including addiction and aiding and abetting mass shootings and suicide. It seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of the stateâs unfair trade practice, product liability, public nuisance and negligence laws.
Reverend Doctor Robert Evans had a few episodes on Behind the Bastards this last month about how AI chatbots seem to sometimes create cult-like dynamics with their users. I don't know how this argument will fare in court, but I don't know if this is necessarily wrong.
It's better that kids be harmed than the government starts intervening with regulation.
Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.
Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1].
Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2].
Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3].
Not have had children in the first place[4].
Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5].
Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6].
Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7].
I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment.
> HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting
Sure. HN is also filled with folks who donât vote or believe in calling their electeds. Parenting has collective-responsibility elements. Iâm not saying I support this instance of it. But in general, the argument that parenting has to be a solely individual responsibility while tech companies pillage our youth is a flawed pitch. (My personal view on this balance flipped with social media.)
If you will never interact with or rely on people who are currently children, then that's plausible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to live that way, so your suggestion is not really under consideration.
Claims in the lawsuit seem sketchy, and I don't think they will win.
It is probably not true that ChatGPT has resulted in an increase in murders and suicides, and certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this. It reminds me of the campaign in the 90s against video game manufacturers for "corrupting the youth".
But I also don't think they expect to win. They just want to show that they're doing something to fight tech companies and AI.
Depends if they have a judge in mind to tip the scales
This is closer to the cases where girlfriends or spouses spent weeks trying to get their person to kill themself. Having a clearly defined log of repeatedly telling someone how and to kill themself is to my non lawyer eyes just the teeniest bit worse.
Iâm no lawyer though so maybe potato po-kill your spouse with a claw hammer-tato. They do sound very similar. Please tell me more.
Do you have a link to a transcript where that happened?
In all the cases I've seen, the user seemed highly motivated to kill themselves and spent a lot of time trying to push past guardrails, ignoring repeated messages to seek help.
> certainly it would be very difficult to prove liability on OpenAI for this
My understanding is that OpenAI products specifically provided help in planning attacks / self harm.
Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases, but from what I've found it provided general information about e.g. how to load and operate a firearm or how past mass shootings have been received in the media.
The way I see it, providing general information is not a crime. They're basically saying: "Oh no! My repository of all human knowledge contains all human knowledge! It must be defective!"
So someone could go and teach a class on how to build pipe bombs, refine ricin, shake-and-bake meth, 3D print guns, and all sorts of other things like that, and when the ATF looked into it, theyâd just be like âwell technically this is all out there on the Internet, in library books, etc. Guess itâs ok!â
The law doesnât work like that.
The Anarchist Cookbook is fully legal to possess and distribute in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook
So yes. It is generally legal to provide information about making drugs, bombs, or guns.
Yes. Yes, it does work like that. Exactly like that.
When the repository has large arrows pointing to kill your {var} with customized pamphlets outlining the steps and highlighting mistakes you specifically might make based on your post history Iâm betting a judge or jury might consider you an accomplice at that point.
Weâre already seeing section 230 protections being defeated in court for targeted feeds, now add itemized instructions on committing felonyâs at scale personalized. Hahahahaha. Hope they IPO quickly.
There are already published examples where there was very specific info and guidance provided.
> Full transcripts are unfortunately not available for any of those cases,
And they never would be without the lawsuits, so, I donât feel bad for OpenAI. All of big tech needs a kick in the ass on transparency.
I donât think the families are eager for the HN peanut gallery to pick apart what their loved ones said.
If a human was found to be specifically putting these how-tos together for someone they might be liable.
Edit: why vote this down? Itâs part of a discussion. This isnât Reddit.
Not different than YouTube or Reddit
Agreed⌠and those people might also be liable.
My first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk.
> first thought was that they were suing as a favor to Trump/Musk
Did you follow up on that by looking for any money links between Musk and this AG?
This take seems particularly crackpot. If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability when used to fire bullets into people, it's rich to say that the manufacturer of a chatbot can be found liable when it mindlessly says "Good point" to people who already have serious mental health problems.
If so, would this program also open me up to liability in Florida?
> If gun manufacturers can't be sued for product liability
Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules. Theyâre the exception that proves the rule.
The purpose of a gun is to kill things, whereas the purpose of a chat bot is to help people. They're not really in the same category of tool.
> purpose of a gun is to kill things
Iâve fired guns. Never to kill things. Iâve also used chat bots to be entirely useless. I wouldnât endorse this dichotomy of purpose as a basis for any judgement.
A gun puts holes into things. This has a pretty consistent effect on anything alive.
Fair but my point is simply, if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same about a chat bot.
Their job is to generate text if that text is good or bad they are functioning as intended.
> if a gun kills a person it's functioning as intended, but you can't say the same for a chat bot
Of course you can. AI has been deployed in multiple military campaigns.
you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose
guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped
you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal
whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal
I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.
Florida could then be sued because a doctor didn't stop a pregnancy that killed the mother
Yes if they can prove you knew it would influence atleast a few chimps and released into the wild anyway.
Ah, yes, from the state that brought us this official website: https://stopchemtrails.com/
Sam Altman has been running a personal PR campaign against himself for three years now. Itâs tremendously popular to take pot shots at him, which means launching an investigation or lawsuit against OpenAI is probably politically expedient even if it goes nowhere.
While I generally lean toward the AI skeptical side, at least for more extreme claims on near-term LLM capability, growth and time frames, I'm not at all a fan of this. It seems like political grandstanding and unlikely to net much in the way of meaningful harm reduction.
If it goes anywhere at all, it'll likely just result in a settlement paid to the government and a consent decree mandating well-intended, nice-sounding yet vague rules which just become another compliance cost for leaders, barrier for emerging competitors and otherwise accomplish little of value for citizens. It's also unproductive because it tends to polarize a complex, nuanced and evolving technical issue toward extremes by hijacking it as fodder for existing political and even culture war battles.
Agree, I would much rather see meaningful and powerful regulatory action instead of silly lawsuits.
It's fine ya'll... they'll get a call from their real Leader tonight. It's complete political grandstanding so someone can get their name in the news and on the phone with someone more important.
The decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word. These seem to be close for common ones like
Unless you also want to roll back writing and reading, the starting point for critiques of AI should be the differences in threat between it and writing. A difference in magnitude is a minimum. If you also think that writing was a mistake, I honor your consistency.> decoder ring is to compare objections to AI with the equivalent for the written word
Why? Like, people doing fraud is an instance of the written and spoken word. That doesnât mean every argument against fraudsters should be leveled against speech.
Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already. Yes, most of the same objections apply to the spoken word. I consider that to be a defense of writing. More, better communication always has pros and cons. I'm one of those who think that they remain a net positive.
> Writing certainly has been an important tool to fraudsters, as AI is already
So has toothpaste. Iâm really not seeing the argument for treating AI as writing in general.
I don't want my loved ones to kill themselves if they happen to be susceptible to AI psychosis and suggestibility
I don't see the state's involvement in that
It's interesting how Texas and Florida are both "red" states but have pivoted into really different political paths under the same flag.
Texas is leaning into becoming the manufacturing and R&D hub for the US, and is courting gigascale data centers and rolling out nuclear power, near-infinite solar, wind, and gas to power it as fast as possible.
Florida is leaning into the retired and populist factions of the GOP, banning data centers and taking on populist anti-tech positions that Texas wouldn't dare (because they want the investment).
As a lifelong citizen of Texas, I would emphasize the decades-long renewable energy expansion has been happening _despite_ our political leadership, not because of it.
The fact that itâs easier to build stuff in Texasâwhether itâs oil rigs or solar farmsâis related to the political leadership. There may be no intention to facilitate renewables, but intentions and effects are two quite different things.
This isnât really true. FL population has exploded so much with high earners that theyâre talking about getting rid of property taxes, and Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth.
> Miami is like #2 behind Houston in terms of tech jobs growth
Source? (Not doubting. But Iâm finding conflicting figures.)
Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals and Florida is a hub for non-college retirees
> Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals
Source? Itâs been an open secret in academia and medicine that professors [1] and doctors [2] are fleeing Texasâs political climate.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-univer...
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/08/Texas-obstetrics-gyn...
The interesting thing about living in a big city in Texas (and now basically all the big cities in TX lean left, not just Austin) is that the tension between city governments and the state, while frustrating at times and definitely dangerous for certain populations (I know folks with transgender kids who have moved out of TX solely for that reason), actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
For example, you can look at the housing crises in most CA cities brought on by NIMBY liberal policies, and while Austin is still very expensive, they (IMO) took the only sane approach to skyrocketing housing costs by actually building a shit ton of housing over the past few years. Austin passed a plastic bag ban a while back that was eventually overturned by the state legislature, but in the meantime a lot of people still bring their own reusable bags (stores can still charge for bags) and I've noticed much less bag pollution in creaks and streams compared to 15 years ago.
Of course, it remains to be seen what happens in the near future. The Republican party in TX is now fully showing their complete moral bankruptcy by nominating the criminal Ken Paxton for Senate, so we'll see if they fall further down the personality cult or if they eventually break.
Blue city in red state has been a winning combination for at least a decade. As you say, however, the recent push towards criminalizing random shit has started corrupting that balance. There are simply too many voters who are fine tearing everything down if it hurts the other team more than theirs. Democrats have those in the far left. But in the GOP, that wing controls the party.
> actually provides something of a decent balance that is appealing to a lot of educated professionals. I feel like a lot of the worst impulses of Dem-run cities get moderated in TX compared to west coast, Dem-run states.
This is true in Georgia as well. There has generally been a productive working relationship between the Democratic mayor in Atlanta and the typically republican/conservative democrat governor. That includes Kemp and Dinkins today. Back in 2017, former Mayor Shirley Franklin--who was very popular and highly effective--endorsed independent Mary Norwood for mayor over democrat Keisha Lance-Bottoms: https://www.ajc.com/news/former-atlanta-mayor-franklin-endor.... (The mayoral election is theoretically non-partisan, but the candidates do have party affiliations outside the election.)
[1] is incredibly vague. Professors of what specifically? Computer science? Feminist theory? The second doesn't produce 'educated professionals'.
> [1] is incrcredibly vague
I was just in New York. NYU has been recruiting Texas robotics professors. Political volatility and funding cuts for research arenât exactly fertile ground for an advanced economy.
Right after Covid, both Texas and Florida saw a huge influx of talent. That seems to have stabilized (and caused a political backlash), with both retaining advantages, but Texas retreating back to energy and Florida to tourism. (They both have token tech scenes, with Austin holding ground against Boston and Seattle.)
> Texas is becoming a hub for educated professionals
Becoming? This has been true for decades in the urban areas
i live in FL and i think the banning data centers thing is also just political posturing - we are in hurricane alley after all. i really don't think anyone was seriously considering building an AI data center in like St. John's County or whatever
If anything Florida (Desantis in particular) more closely resembles traditional conservatism in the US, as opposed to MAGA populism. I think, or hope, that's a good thing in the long run as AI shapes up to be a horseshoe political issue.
Florida is a purple state
Kinda? Maybe?
Florida, at least for local Florida stuff, like what GP is talking about, has had R governor, senate, and house for 25+ years. With a supermajority R for most of that I think.
Not really anymore. The house seats are 20R and 8D, they haven't voted blue for president since Obama, and haven't elected a democrat as governor since the 90s. Voter registration is also heavily skewed republican.
To be fair, "since Obama" isn't very long ago, and Hillary and Biden weren't very inspiring candidates, to say the least.
It was one 25 years ago.
Yep. It was when I got here in the early 1990's. Not so much since.
It used to be, just like Virginia used to be solidly red. But Trump won Florida by more than Harris won New York.
Interestingly, both FL and TX had the same vote for Trump in 2024: 56.1%
The people, sure. The elected officials? Nope.
This isn't a bad take. (I'm 35yr in FL)
Is populism when politicians claim to care about little people issues instead of making economy arrow go up?
AI is a liability issue waiting to happen --- and the examples just keep coming.
Someone forgot to bribe someone.
> Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit on Monday against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the AI startupâs ChatGPT is unsafe and that the company misled the public about associated risks. The suit contends that ChatGPT poses risks to children and is responsible for a âlitany of harms,â including addiction and aiding and abetting mass shootings and suicide. It seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of the stateâs unfair trade practice, product liability, public nuisance and negligence laws.
Reverend Doctor Robert Evans had a few episodes on Behind the Bastards this last month about how AI chatbots seem to sometimes create cult-like dynamics with their users. I don't know how this argument will fare in court, but I don't know if this is necessarily wrong.
It's better that kids be harmed than the government starts intervening with regulation.
Either kids aren't actually being harmed, government regulation will cause more harm, or parents should parent their kids. Either way, nothing about the solution should involve me.
> or parents should parent their kids
Parents are voters. One of the way they parent is by being civically active in their kidsâ interest.
Parents should:
Throw away their TVs and minimize screen time at home[1].
Be responsible for the upbringing of their own children[2].
Learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead[3].
Not have had children in the first place[4].
Be the ones responsible for parenting their own children[5].
Actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them[6].
Get to decide what content their children, then like me, you would oppose any kind of legislation with this goal in mind[7].
I could go on. My point is that HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting. I have no problem acting as a lightning rod for that arugment.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182101
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074072
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072708
4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48069884
5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47818303
6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635531
7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382754
> HN has a long tradition of distrusting regulation especially when it comes to parenting
Sure. HN is also filled with folks who donât vote or believe in calling their electeds. Parenting has collective-responsibility elements. Iâm not saying I support this instance of it. But in general, the argument that parenting has to be a solely individual responsibility while tech companies pillage our youth is a flawed pitch. (My personal view on this balance flipped with social media.)
If you will never interact with or rely on people who are currently children, then that's plausible. Unfortunately, it is not possible to live that way, so your suggestion is not really under consideration.