Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn’t justify a preemptive ban.
How? We have no bans or restrictions on it. Who is enforcing this and how? Who is determining the acceptable amount of mercury in our food when you don’t want the FDA around to do that? You’re just assuming these things will happen without any apparatus for knowledge or enforcement.
Victim: “they put too much mercury in this product.”
Vendor: “others have mercury too you can’t possibly say this was all my fault or even to what degree.”
Society: shrugs
If you knowingly sell me a car with an engine about to fail, you are in no way accountable. Are you going to seriously expect every single American to become a mechanic overnight? To be able to diagnose the condition of a modern engine in 2023?
It is not reasonable to ask everybody to become experts with everything they use or need. We don’t live in rural communities in the 1500s. The breadth and depth of knowledge you need now is exponentially more burdensome. Hence why we have specialized so much.
Liability would be decided by the courts or another form of binding arbitration. Obviously. Harming someone through action or negligence is a tort, and torts are addressed by the judicial branch. Both sides would present their arguments, including any scientific evidence in their favor—the FDA or similar organizations could weigh in here as expert witnesses, if they have something to offer—and the court will decide whether the vendor acted reasonably or has liability toward the defendant.
If you knew that the engine was about to fail and didn’t disclose that fact, or specifically indicate that the vehicle was being sold “as-is” with no guarantees, then you certainly should be accountable for that. Your contract with the buyer was based on the premise that they were getting a vehicle in a certain condition. An unknown fault would be one thing, but if you knew about the issue and the buyer did not then there was no “meeting of the minds”, which means that the contract is void and you are a thief for taking their payment under false pretenses.
Anyway, you continue to miss the point. I’m not saying that everyone should become an expert in every domain. I’m saying that people should be able to choose their own experts (reputation sources) rather than have one particular organization like the FDA (instance/community moderators) pre-filtering the options for everyone. I wasn’t even the one who brought up the FDA—this thread was originally about online content moderation. If you insist on continuing the thread please try to limit yourself to relevant points.
I am not missing the point. I completely understand what you’re saying. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they “missed the point.“ I hate that accusation, it’s basically a meme at this point and it’s one of the most tired Reddit habits I really wish would not be carried over here.
My issue is simple: Reality does not and will not play out the way you’re envisioning.