> Ironically, this pressure from regulators may have led to the company flipping the switch and doing exactly the wide-scale harm they were afraid of.
This is an incredibly trivial and shallow understanding of the situation.
Consider was harm happening before the filters were in place? Yes.
The problem was that the filters weren’t there to start with not that turning them on was bad or caused harm.
Compare to any other harmful thing, for example cigarettes. Is the solution to the problem to just let people have as much they want, because taking them away is bad?
>Compare to any other harmful thing, for example cigarettes. Is the solution to the problem to just let people have as much they want, because taking them away is bad?
As far as I know there's still no limitation on the quantity of tobacco products an individual can purchase.
Where does the paternalism end? Mandatory fitness programs? How would this be enforced?
>Is the solution to the problem to just let people have as much they want, because taking them away is bad?
Easy peasy, right? Start listing off all of things that are "harmful" and take them away from people. Booze, 80% of the food people eat, power tools. What does harmful even mean in this context?
This is an incredibly trivial and shallow understanding of the situation.
Consider was harm happening before the filters were in place? Yes.
The problem was that the filters weren’t there to start with not that turning them on was bad or caused harm.
Compare to any other harmful thing, for example cigarettes. Is the solution to the problem to just let people have as much they want, because taking them away is bad?
Definitely. Not.