How are you supposed to know what sort of regulation is needed if you don't even know what the issues are yet? Similarly, won't it be much easier to make the case for regulation if you can point to results of experiments like this one instead of just hypotheticals?

The problem right now is that they can be held liable for distributing CSAM content on their services and, since April 3, they can also be fined if they try to detect that content. It's an impossible situation.

Now, I'm not claiming that these companies always have noble intentions. But there's nothing nefarious here -- they just want regulatory certainty: do X, Y, and Z and you won't be fined or sued.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47635472

Points: 14

# Comments: 4

Or worse, they'll just think you're a jerk and not feel sorry for you.

In the US, we do have access to all the data [1]. They're required to report every incident with an injury or any amount of property damage, and it's all available for download as CSV.

> For another, it at best shows that Waymo is safer than average.

No, it shows that Waymo is 6 to 12x safer than average.

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde...

This site is intentionally doing it very poorly to make a point. Really, the takeaway should be don't do things poorly. But that's kind of obvious.

The statement, "The US spends ~$14,570 per person on healthcare. Japan spends ~$5,790" is about the average amount that the country as a whole is spending per person on healthcare, not what any given individual is paying. Per-capita GDP (i.e. the average economic output per person) is the most relevant comparison.

This is essentially what the Supreme Court said when they upheld Indiana's Voter ID law in 2008 [1]:

> The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483. The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

> Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.

> The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47314335

Points: 101

# Comments: 45