But your fundamental ethics are something that can be changed by criticism and exposure to opposing viewpoints. If you have such a static view of your beliefs and opinions I would urge you to reflect on that.
>>They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions.
That may be, but people generally are incentivized to be far more charitable to their position than the opposition. Reading the opposition from the oppositions own formulation will be a far greater defense of what they actually think in terms of tradeoffs.
>>Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services.
Ben himself in the article you are referring to says this is shady, but he also points out that its generally not nearly as bad as say the NYT which requires you to call via phone to unsubscribe, and that the conflict with the regulators is comparatively heavy handed and doesn't take into account the tradeoffs he wants to discuss in his article.
>>So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever.
Ok, not really up to you though. Ideas enter the marketplace and compete with each other. The ones that people find the most persuasive end up affecting the policy. Clearly his view points are not affecting the policy that much seeing as he is directly responding to regulation that is occurring and antithetical to what he believes is correct.
Perhaps I don't have a static view of my beliefs at all? You really don't know much about my beliefs. I'm just saying I don't like stratechery's and I don't see why that's threatening to you.
And yeah of course it's not up to me, that's why I'm griping in a comment section.
>>They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions.
That may be, but people generally are incentivized to be far more charitable to their position than the opposition. Reading the opposition from the oppositions own formulation will be a far greater defense of what they actually think in terms of tradeoffs.
>>Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services.
Ben himself in the article you are referring to says this is shady, but he also points out that its generally not nearly as bad as say the NYT which requires you to call via phone to unsubscribe, and that the conflict with the regulators is comparatively heavy handed and doesn't take into account the tradeoffs he wants to discuss in his article.
>>So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever.
Ok, not really up to you though. Ideas enter the marketplace and compete with each other. The ones that people find the most persuasive end up affecting the policy. Clearly his view points are not affecting the policy that much seeing as he is directly responding to regulation that is occurring and antithetical to what he believes is correct.