sutuplesu

Pragmatic rulemaking for large numbers of people also needs to take into account the fact that the rule will naturally be viewed as a loose guideline by some people, and even as a thing to be defied for its own sake by others. Setting the limit stricter than the actual desired behavior can push average behavior closer to the target.

I think you're saying that musicians should not be able to have input to where their music is distributed? That's a fairly radical position. If that's not what you mean, could you expand or revise?

Are they not interlinked? It seems to me that inequality often begets tribalism, as people defensively form bands. Which then reinforces the spiral downwards.

> you cannot access the new object through pointers to the old

The access in the caller -- `return f.x` -- is not through a pointer.

Facebook's actions keep being cast as if there is a completely open, level, neutral field that the censorious fact checkers are now distorting. But that's not the starting point. Facebook already has its thumb -- if not both hands and an elbow! -- on the scale, as far as what content is dispersed. The view is distorted to begin with, by Facebook choosing what is promoted and what is not.

They may not be doing a particularly good job un-distorting it, but it's not a choice between pure and free exchange of information and censorship. It is between whether Facebook is going to manipulate in both directions -- promoting and taking down -- or just one.

(Note that I don't think either of these choices are particularly good. I would prefer that Facebook did neither.)

> find sources you trust

And those sources will consist of...who? Perhaps, people who have spent time and effort learning about the topic, a.k.a. "the experts"?

I mean you can't have it both ways. If a person is counted for apportionment in a particular place, that is the place they're "represented" and it must be the place their vote counts.