EU: Facebook and Instagram's Infinite Scroll May Break Digital Rules

[Charlie Bonesx]

With a sugar tax we’ve seen companies go to HFCS. A less healthy alternative. Or use artificial sweeteners that have their own set of issues.

HFCS has been widely used for decades because it's cheaper than cane sugar, not because of sugar taxes. and in virtually every jurisdiction with a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, drinks sweetened with HFCS are taxed the same as drinks sweetened with sugar. companies don't avoid the tax by switching to HFCS

if your argument is that regulation can have unintended consequences, you'll need a different example. this one doesn't support that claim.

 

[I7guy]

HFCS has been widely used for decades because it's cheaper than cane sugar, not because of sugar taxes. and in virtually every jurisdiction with a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, drinks sweetened with HFCS are taxed the same as drinks sweetened with sugar. companies don't avoid the tax by switching to HFCS

if your argument is that regulation can have unintended consequences, you'll need a different example. this one doesn't support that claim.

I agree that hfcs isn’t taxed the same as sugar but sugar is more heavily regulated in import than hfcs. Therefore my point stands. HFCs is cheaper to import, produce and use in drinks even though the drinks are subject a sales tax.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

I agree that hfcs isn’t taxed the same as sugar but sugar is more heavily regulated in import than hfcs. Therefore my point stands. HFCs is cheaper to import, produce and use in drinks even though the drinks are subject a sales tax.

your point does not stand

that's a different argument. sugar import restrictions and beverage taxes aren't the same policy. hfcs became widespread because it was cheaper under existing agricultural and trade policies, not because companies were trying to avoid beverage taxes.

this example does not demonstrate that health outcome motivated sugar taxes led to increased HFCS use

that was your point and it absolutely does not stand

don't be so disingenuous

 

[I7guy]

your point does not stand

that's a different argument. sugar import restrictions and beverage taxes aren't the same policy. hfcs became widespread because it was cheaper under existing agricultural and trade policies, not because companies were trying to avoid beverage taxes.

this example does not demonstrate that health outcome motivated sugar taxes led to increased HFCS use

that was your point and it absolutely does not stand

don't be so disingenuous

Your point does not stand.

HFCS is cheaper. It’s cheaper to produce and import and increases the margin for the price seller.

My point stands. A natural ingredient replaced by an artificial one that is worse due to regulations.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Your point does not stand.

HFCS is cheaper. It’s cheaper to produce and import and increases the margin for the price seller.

My point stands. A natural ingredient replaced by an artificial one that is worse due to regulations.

First of all HFCS and cane sugar are nutritionally nearly identical. They are both processed sugars. One is not natural ingredient and another an artificial ingredient


And again, your point was that a health motivated tax resulted in an unhealthy result. Which is in no way the case.


You can pretend you meant something else now if you want. But we all know what you meant and your original point does not stand

your new one is tenuous at best

 

[Samplasion]

Your point does not stand.

HFCS is cheaper. It’s cheaper to produce and import and increases the margin for the price seller.

My point stands. A natural ingredient replaced by an artificial one that is worse due to regulations.

You're arguing that companies would do anything to increase their profit margins. The second paragraph doesn't follow from the first, so it's a non-sequitur. To address this:

I agree that hfcs isn’t taxed the same as sugar but sugar is more heavily regulated in import than hfcs. Therefore my point stands. HFCs is cheaper to import, produce and use in drinks even though the drinks are subject a sales tax.

Correlation is not causation. Just because sugar is more regulated doesn't mean it's the reason companies switched to something else (as @Charlie Bonesx pointed out).

 

[surferfb]

if your argument is that regulation can have unintended consequences, you'll need a different example. this one doesn't support that claim.

I don’t understand why that is a controversial statement. Of course regulations can have unintended consequences. That’s a story as old as time itself.

See EU cookie banners or Spain’s link tax in recent memory, further back things like US laws prohibiting branch banking in the 1930s leading to bank failures or Prohibition leading to massive increases in organized crime.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

I don’t understand why that is a controversial statement.

I did not say it was. The point is that they made up a flawed example.

 

[I7guy]

I did not say it was. The point is that they made up a flawed example.

The example was valid, unintended consequences of regulations. But horses for courses. 🙄

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

The example was valid, unintended consequences of regulations. But horses for courses. 🙄

we've already explained that your example was not valid

let me lay it out for you more clearly. your argument as stated:

P1: taxes on sugar caused manufacturers to switch from cane sugar to HFCS

P2: cane sugar is natural, whereas HFCS is artificial

P3: because HFCS is artificial (per P2), it is less healthy than cane sugar

C: therefore, sugar taxes produced a worse health outcome than no tax


P1 and P2 are factually false, P3 depends entirely on P2, so it fails with it. since the conclusion rests on these premises, the argument is unsound and the conclusion does not follow


additionally, P3 commits an appeal to nature, inferring healthfulness from naturalness, so it would not follow EVEN IF P2 were true

 

[usagora]

Too much government

Yep, this is ridiculous - textbook nanny state behavior.

 

[I7guy]

we've already explained that your example was not valid

let me lay it out for you more clearly. your argument as stated:

P1: taxes on sugar caused manufacturers to switch from cane sugar to HFCS

P2: cane sugar is natural, whereas HFCS is artificial

P3: because HFCS is artificial (per P2), it is less healthy than cane sugar

C: therefore, sugar taxes produced a worse health outcome than no tax


P1 and P2 are factually false, P3 depends entirely on P2, so it fails with it. since the conclusion rests on these premises, the argument is unsound and the conclusion does not follow


additionally, P3 commits an appeal to nature, inferring healthfulness from naturalness, so it would not follow EVEN IF P2 were true

P1 conclusion
P2 true
P3 true

And the appeal to nature is exactly the point. How a tax on sugar results in products that weren’t healthy to begin with that are now even less healthy.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

P1 conclusion
P2 true
P3 true

P1 is a claim that you made, a claim that is false. we've also already explained why it is false

P2 is plainly false - one is not more or less natural or artificial than the other

P3 is fallacious - "natural" does not = "more healthy"

And the appeal to nature is exactly the point. How a tax on sugar results in products that weren’t healthy to begin with that are now even less healthy.

that's just a restatement of your entire fallacious and unsound argument. you are openly admitting that your entire argument rests on a fallacy. this does not help make your case

 

[I7guy]

P1 is a claim that you made, a claim that is false. we've also already explained why it is false

P2 is plainly false - one is not more or less natural or artificial than the other

P3 is fallacious - "natural" does not = "more healthy"




that's just a restatement of your entire fallacious and unsound argument. you are openly admitting that your entire argument rests on a fallacy. this does not help make your case

Rsther than have posts go asunder I’ll end it here by saying it’s a good illustration of unintended consequences. Don’t agree? Horses for courses.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Rsther than have posts go asunder I’ll end it here by saying it’s a good illustration of unintended consequences. Don’t agree? Horses for courses.

I do not agree

you could try again if you like, or we can leave at is with you not having illustrated any unintended consequences

 

[drrich2]

If anyone wants an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it pertains to government regulation, one example is then-President Barack Obama’s assurance, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," regarding the Affordable Care Act. The restrictions imposed by that Act effectively cancelled many people health plans! And some had big premium jumps due to required coverage additions they didn't stand to benefit from.

My point here is not to re-try the ACA; was it good, bad, both, too much or not enough, not the issue.

My point was when you regulate something in a big way, you tend to generate 'knock-on effects.'

To be clear, one can argue this as a tool from either side of the political aisle on a range of issues - the 'War on Drugs,' trickle-down economics, 'soft on crime' approaches, proposed interventions to deal with homeless people, etc.

The kind of intervention the E.U. seems bent on sounds like a 'slippery slope' situation, where if they get their way with this, what comes next? If they don't like perceived social media over-indulgence, and act to make it less compelling for users, what stops somebody from proposing fast food should be made to taste less appealing because some people don't like how much of it some of us choose to eat? Where is the line drawn? If it's just the governmental 'preference' of the day, that can mutate into progressive (over-)regulation.

Maybe some people watch too much t.v., and letting channels run all night is the new 'infinite scroll,' to mandate no t.v. programs from midnight to 6 a.m.?

 

[drrich2]

In other news, from an e-mail digest by The Economist today:

[td]More and more people are turning to chatbots for companionship, sometimes prompting them to adopt the personalities of lovers or close friends. China doesn’t like it. Concerned about addiction, extreme behaviour and plummeting fertility, the government is looking to end AI romances.[/td]

I'm not a paid subscriber (unfortunate; they've got some good stuff!), so I'm not sure how they are 'looking to end' it.

China is not part of the E.U., but it confronts us with the question - what are the moral limits of the government's authority to intrude into controlling adults' lives? Do they have the moral right to dictate you can't have a virtual girlfriend? Judging from the One Child Policy years and reports of things going on then, China seems to think government moral limits to dictate to citizenry are pretty sparse.

It's like with the Declaration of Independence; claims of a right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' endowed to all men (we'd now say people) by their Creator basically claims government's moral role is limited because there are human rights that are inherent, not given or rightly takable by government.

That itself can be a slippery slope argument, but since the current debate gets into the moral case for a government to presume to regulation private companies to protect adults from themselves because they voluntarily choose to over-indulge (in the government's view) in that product, I think it's relevant.

I specify 'moral case' because a government can effectively legislate itself authorization to do anything. This issue came up at tend end of World War II; how to prosecute heinous Nazi officials when they effectively were 'the government.' And yet...turns out they could be executed. Where there's a will, there's a way...

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

In other news, from an e-mail digest by The Economist today:


[td]More and more people are turning to chatbots for companionship, sometimes prompting them to adopt the personalities of lovers or close friends. China doesn’t like it. Concerned about addiction, extreme behaviour and plummeting fertility, the government is looking to end AI romances.[/td]

I'm not a paid subscriber (unfortunate; they've got some good stuff!), so I'm not sure how they are 'looking to end' it.

China is not part of the E.U., but it confronts us with the question - what are the moral limits of the government's authority to intrude into controlling adults' lives? Do they have the moral right to dictate you can't have a virtual girlfriend? Judging from the One Child Policy years and reports of things going on then, China seems to think government moral limits to dictate to citizenry are pretty sparse.

It's like with the Declaration of Independence; claims of a right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' endowed to all men (we'd now say people) by their Creator basically claims government's moral role is limited because there are human rights that are inherent, not given or rightly takable by government.

That itself can be a slippery slope argument, but since the current debate gets into the moral case for a government to presume to regulation private companies to protect adults from themselves because they voluntarily choose to over-indulge (in the government's view) in that product, I think it's relevant.

I specify 'moral case' because a government can effectively legislate itself authorization to do anything. This issue came up at tend end of World War II; how to prosecute heinous Nazi officials when they effectively were 'the government.' And yet...turns out they could be executed. Where there's a will, there's a way...

you may be conflating morality with political power

you can make a moral argument about what the limits of a government's authority should be,
and you can debate the morality of any specific case

but a government's ability to legislate itself authorization to do something is a matter of political power, regardless of the morality of that something one way or another

edit: edited for clarity

 

[I7guy]

If anyone wants an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it pertains to government regulation, one example is then-President Barack Obama’s assurance, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," regarding the Affordable Care Act. The restrictions imposed by that Act effectively cancelled many people health plans! And some had big premium jumps due to required coverage additions they didn't stand to benefit from.

My point here is not to re-try the ACA; was it good, bad, both, too much or not enough, not the issue.

My point was when you regulate something in a big way, you tend to generate 'knock-on effects.'

To be clear, one can argue this as a tool from either side of the political aisle on a range of issues - the 'War on Drugs,' trickle-down economics, 'soft on crime' approaches, proposed interventions to deal with homeless people, etc.

The kind of intervention the E.U. seems bent on sounds like a 'slippery slope' situation, where if they get their way with this, what comes next? If they don't like perceived social media over-indulgence, and act to make it less compelling for users, what stops somebody from proposing fast food should be made to taste less appealing because some people don't like how much of it some of us choose to eat? Where is the line drawn? If it's just the governmental 'preference' of the day, that can mutate into progressive (over-)regulation.

Maybe some people watch too much t.v., and letting channels run all night is the new 'infinite scroll,' to mandate no t.v. programs from midnight to 6 a.m.?

The blowback from the ACA was not unintended, it was accurately predicted.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

I believe a high powered auto should be driven the way I want on streets and speed limits are a suggestion.

Ignoring speed limits is just being uncooperative to your fellow citizens

Traffic safety relies on predictability

When you ignore speed limits the movement of your machine is less predictable and you put yourself and others at risk for no good reason

Putting yourself at risk is fine. Putting others at risk just because you don’t like being told what to do is needlessly uncooperative and ethically abhorrent

Edit:

Incidentally, i’ve never understood why automobiles are so over engineered for speed.

Apparently our hybrid suv can get to nearly 190 km/hr (we haven’t tried)

that has no real world use case

 

[I7guy]

Ignoring speed limits is just being uncooperative to your fellow citizens

Traffic safety relies on predictability

When you ignore speed limits the movement of your machine is less predictable and you put yourself and others at risk for no good reason

Putting yourself at risk is fine. Putting others at risk just because you don’t like being told what to do is needlessly uncooperative and ethically abhorrent

You have to go back and read the post I responded to gain appropriate context before responding in an orthogonal direction.

Edit:

Incidentally, i’ve never understood why automobiles are so over engineered for speed.

Apparently our hybrid suv can get to nearly 190 km/hr (we haven’t tried)

that has no real world use case

There are many things that we as humans do, because we can. One thing out of thousands is over-engineer cars to go faster than needed on public roads.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

You have to go back and read the post I responded to gain appropriate context before responding in an orthogonal direction.

There are many things that we as humans do, because we can. One thing out of thousands is over-engineer cars to go faster than needed on public roads.

I believe a high powered auto should be driven the way I want on streets and speed limits are a suggestion.

do you believe you should just be able to drive as fast as you want?

yes or no?

 

[I7guy]

I’ll ignore your strange use of “orthogonal”

do you believe you should just be able to drive as fast as you want?

yes or no?

The context of your reply was done in a manner that leads me to believe you haven’t the proper context.🙄 As such the question is not relevant.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

The context of your reply was done in a manner that leads me to believe you haven’t the proper context.🙄 As such the question is not relevant.

So you refuse to answer the question?

The question itself needs no context and relevance is irrelevant

It’s a pretty simple yes or no….

Do you believe that you should be able to drive as fast as you want?

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

The context of your reply was done in a manner that leads me to believe you haven’t the proper context.🙄 As such the question is not relevant.

The relevance of the question is a measure of your faith in, and willingness to abide by, a social contract, which is precisely what the article and the entire discussion are about

Your refusal to answer is quite telling

It seems that you believe that your “freedom to” is more important than anyone else’s “freedom from” which is a common North American misunderstanding, almost pathology really, of what human freedom and liberation actually require