Infinite scroll could be illegal. Autoplaying videos could be illegal. Black-box algorithms that end up promoting outrage just to keep eyeballs on the screen could be illegal. Ad-funded platforms could be illegal
Seems like this would have massive free speech implications. The obvious difference between tobacco and digital content is that digital content is speech, tobacco is not, and legal restrictions on speech have a rather unpleasant history.
I’m definitely more open to your community level interventions, though I don’t think I can go to no wifi and one desktop computer in the house, and I’m not sure if that is what you mean by “digital intentionality” or if you have some lesser standard that you would want everyone to pledge to? Like, I could definitely benefit from less youtube in my life.
The obvious difference between tobacco and digital content is that digital content is speech, tobacco is not, and legal restrictions on speech have a rather unpleasant history.
We are so lucky the tobacco companies didn’t think of printing some texts on the cigarettes.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that printing text of some kind on cigarettes would have created some kind of Free Speech Clause barrier to regulations on cigarettes? Because I don’t think that’s true.
It was a joke. But trying to get “speech” involved in your product seems like an obvious idea if you want to get some constitutional projection. It just probably wouldn’t work with literally food.
Even outside of food, if there is a regulation that targets the product irrespective of what text is printed on it, printing text on it will not defeat the regulation.
Seems like this would have massive free speech implications. The obvious difference between tobacco and digital content is that digital content is speech, tobacco is not, and legal restrictions on speech have a rather unpleasant history.
I’m definitely more open to your community level interventions, though I don’t think I can go to no wifi and one desktop computer in the house, and I’m not sure if that is what you mean by “digital intentionality” or if you have some lesser standard that you would want everyone to pledge to? Like, I could definitely benefit from less youtube in my life.
We are so lucky the tobacco companies didn’t think of printing some texts on the cigarettes.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that printing text of some kind on cigarettes would have created some kind of Free Speech Clause barrier to regulations on cigarettes? Because I don’t think that’s true.
It was a joke. But trying to get “speech” involved in your product seems like an obvious idea if you want to get some constitutional projection. It just probably wouldn’t work with literally food.
Even outside of food, if there is a regulation that targets the product irrespective of what text is printed on it, printing text on it will not defeat the regulation.