undefined

points

by protocolture18 hours ago |

comments

by pbhjpbhj9 hours ago|

[-]

Are you alleging that California claims stuff to be carcinogenic without evidence?

Do you have a supposed motive?

Any evidence?

Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.

by ceejayoz7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

California’s threshold is far too low to be useful. The end result is basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue

by PaulHoule3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide

is the one that gets me. Fried snacks from Asia frequently have a Prop 65 warning. Thing is it is produced by ordinary cooking techniques from ordinary and can be found in both traditional and ultra-processed foods.

by voakbasda5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Well, the “experts” say a charred steak is carcinogenic. At that point, I stopped listening to anything out of their mouths. It might be true, but it’s also a matter of degree.

California has set such a low threshold that one cannot take their label seriously about anything. It applies to nearly everything, making it effectively a useless warning.

by lanstin4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It also never lists the specific substances nor what one can do about it (not enter the building, don’t lick the ceiling, wear a mask, whatever). Good intentioned but utterly useless.

by autoexec15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation.

I'll bet a ton of that regulation is insufficient, and/or paid for, or even written by, the industry to make it harder for competitors or to allow them to increase their profits by cutting corners.

Regulation isn't some on/off switch that always makes things better or worse. What matters is what those regulations are and who they serve.

by protocolture12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yep and I bet if I reviewed every bit of it line by line I couldnt convince many people to remove any of it.

Because Regulation might not be an on/off switch but Deregulation is a complete hard no for most people.

by autoexec7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'd agree that deregulation is a complete hard no for most people, but that's because removing bad/watered down regulation isn't enough. Calling for "deregulation" is like saying "defund the police". A very small number of radicals claim to actually want that, but most people think that something better has to fill the void. Bad regulation needs to be replaced by good regulation.

If what you mean by "Deregulation" is "different/better regulation" most people will happily support it. For example, most people would love to have the government just automatically mail them their tax refunds with the paperwork they need to verify it was correct. Standing in their way are companies who have been spending a lot of money on bribes to make sure filing our taxes is as expensive and difficult as possible (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-sp...)

by protocolture7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There was a pretty decent campaign locally to make it legal to deliver fixed line broadband services.

But once you convince someone that the legislation exists and the penalties exist for supplying fixed line broadband services, the next goal posts slide into place, and they reflexively defend the idea that the government would fine people more for overbuilding the national carrier to a greater extent than importing several kilos of cocaine. They parrot absolutely bonkers shit like "Internet is a natural monopoly" when they literally have to fine people to make it a monopoly.

Most people defend the status quo with extreme vigor. And most people aren't even slightly qualified to analyse the status quo. The supplied alternative doesnt matter. Some person they dont know, doing something they are ambivalent about might find their profession easier. Thats completely verboten.

by autoexec2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Are you sure that the "Internet is a natural monopoly" people were actually people and not just bots and shills? The only reason I could see real people wanting a monopoly would be if they were pushing for the government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. There's a case that it doesn't make sense to have 50 different companies all running physical cables everywhere. What doesn't make sense is only allowing one private company to do it and leaving yourself at their mercy.

by TylerE6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

"Defund the police" was such a dumb slogan. "Demilitarize the police" would have been much better.

by autoexec2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Agreed, although in addition to that the hope was to do other things too like divert funds out of tasks the police do that they shouldn't be doing in the first place (like mental health calls and wellness checks) and into social services/EMS instead and also away from internal affairs and into independent/community oversight boards (no more policing themselves).

I doubt any pithy slogan would have encompassed all of it, but the least they could have done was avoid something that most people would reject instantly for being insane. It's amazing that so many people managed to get past the slogan at all to get into the "well actually what we mean is..." and it was totally predictable that the slogan would be weaponized against the movement by opponents