If it got more usage, we would probably think more about whether it’s net-good.
Like with laws, the impact of a thing can often be mostly about what takes place in counterfactuals, or about the hypothetical underlying norms/virtues evidenced by it. What happens in actuality (outside of people’s heads) is not a reliable way to measure impact, so when people bring up something as an issue, that should count for a lot even on its own. What to do about it (if anything) can be much more complicated, but the rule of thumb of going from direct usage in actuality is invalid.
but the rule of thumb of going from direct usage in actuality is invalid.
Clearly whether it’s actually being used in concerning ways is a crucial determinant. I agree you need to adjust for chilling effects, but obviously whenever you are worried about a law like this, you should look at whether it is ever actually ever enforced in a relevant way, and at what frequency.
It’s tricky to get calibrated on chilling effects multipliers, but that doesn’t make looking at direct usage invalid. It’s still the first place I would start.
Like with laws, the impact of a thing can often be mostly about what takes place in counterfactuals, or about the hypothetical underlying norms/virtues evidenced by it. What happens in actuality (outside of people’s heads) is not a reliable way to measure impact, so when people bring up something as an issue, that should count for a lot even on its own. What to do about it (if anything) can be much more complicated, but the rule of thumb of going from direct usage in actuality is invalid.
Clearly whether it’s actually being used in concerning ways is a crucial determinant. I agree you need to adjust for chilling effects, but obviously whenever you are worried about a law like this, you should look at whether it is ever actually ever enforced in a relevant way, and at what frequency.
It’s tricky to get calibrated on chilling effects multipliers, but that doesn’t make looking at direct usage invalid. It’s still the first place I would start.
(For other readers: the reply is at this link due to a comment-deletion blip that got reverted; the framing crux of what I was getting at in the above comment is Yudkowsky’s characterization of enforcement as “the sort of force that’s meant to be predictable, predicted, avoidable, and avoided”.)