If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
from the government-created-'ad-blindness' dept
The government's neverending quest to make America "safer" has turned on itself, making Americans less safe. This isn't solely an issue with the government's obsession with "security," although that is a large part of it. It's the constant onslaught of warning messages, applied to nearly every product sold by retailers and any area frequented by the public. Most of the warnings are of the CYA variety. These are used to deflect future legal complications and satisfy the endless requests of regulators.David Henderson, writing for Econlog, suggests that years of government-mandated warnings are resulting in a sort of "warning blindness" in Americans. He begins by discussing California's infamous Proposition 65, a law that requires warning labels to be affixed to any product that might possibly contain chemicals the state has determined "cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm." Like any bit of overweening governmental concern, it has its heart in the right place. In practice, it's a nightmare.
Nearly every product sold in California contains this warning label. And it's not just products. A majority of businesses in California feature signage containing this warning. (One example: a parking garage may have to post the warning sign because of the exhaust cars produce.) This has led to Californians ignoring the label completely, even if the product in question actually contains harmful substances. Why? Because the warning label is omnipresent. If something's everywhere, on everything, it's obviously meaningless. (The old adage: if everyone's special then no one's special applies here.)
Californians have learned to ignore Proposition 65 labels because they are white noise: they don't communicate anything about degrees of danger or probabilities.The problem here is created by the government itself. By declaring a majority of places and products "dangerous," it has lessened the effectiveness of the labels. This sort of self-defeating behavior goes much further than product labeling. It also carries over into other areas controlled by the government, undermining various agencies' non-stop efforts to portray this country as being in imminent danger at all times.
When I went through the San Jose airport Saturday morning in a long line at TSA, we passengers were subjected to John Pistole's warning, on an infinite loop, of the dangers of terrorism. We've all seen enough to know that it's not that dangerous. So we tend to ignore government warnings.The government wants to be taken seriously and yet, it can't help but get in its own way. It gets in its own way because it wants to micromanage the lives of Americans. It loves control. It "knows better." On the rare occasion the government has something important to communicate, it can't find many people willing to grant it much credulity.
So when there really is a high-probability threat and the government warns us, we tend to dismiss that too. Government cries wolf way too often.If the Homeland Security Advisory System moves from "elevated" to "high," is that up or down in terms of severity? Does anyone outside of the DHS know or even care? If we suddenly went to "severe," would it affect the daily lives of Americans outside of more hassles at airport checkpoints? The public doesn't really seem to know what these phrases mean in terms of an actual threat. And most Americans have long since stopped caring about "yellow alerts" or "orange alerts." It's meaningless and it conveys no useful information.
How meaningless? The alert system has never dropped below Yellow ("Heightened" [as compared to what?]) in its existence. (We have always been at war with terror.) In fact, a 2009 Task Force report suggested removing the two lowest tiers and making "Heightened" the baseline. If that's the baseline, then the government has won and the terrorists have won. Americans will remain awash in a sea of government-generated ambiance just loud enough to be noticeable but not annoying enough to grant it their full attention. It's a steady supply of junk "info" that generates resigned complacency, rather than heightened vigilance, and it does little more than make the government feel better about its monotonous efforts.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, security
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't forget "amber alerts". Like I can do anything about that, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Color alerts were phased out in April of 2011.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, it's amazing how often someone does manage to see that yellow Ford pickup truck.
Which tends, in my mind, to prove his point. The fact that they're relatively rare means that when they occur we're more likely to make a mental "note" regarding that yellow truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amber alerts.
but there are others out there that are very dangerous.
they were counting on it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, I thought we had always been at war with Eastasia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's just as effective as the War on Crime, Drugs, Terror, and Peasants....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prop 65
#facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prop 65
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eventually. Of something.
Plan accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Frankly, I just don't get it. There is a preponderance of things besides terrorism which kill people with far greater frequency. Because somebody might decide to set off an explosive or hijack a plane at some indeterminable point in the future, the government blows billions on security and defense. Meanwhile, we've already lost millions of jobs, over a million homes have been foreclosed upon, we're $17 trillion in debt and the government cannot (or rather doesn't want to) balance the budget. Their priorities are completely busted.
Even when we had our military patrolling the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq, it didn't prevent those people from killing. We had beefed-up security (theatre) presence at the Boston Marathon, including bomb-sniffing dogs, yet two pressure-cooker bombs went off anyway, so what the hell are more cameras going to do?
We're all human, we all bleed and we all die. It's not a question of if but when. All this paranoia about our impending doom is turning us into an Animal Farm. I'd much rather live free, the American way, what with all the inherent risks. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't play golf, but I have seen the signs, so the sign must work.
and the fact that you know that fact about lighting tells me you have at some time or another seen a similar sign, and from that have learnt to avoid lighting.
The signs work !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a matter of common sense, not warning signs. Know your world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it's just the stupid people who cannot work out what a sign says are just going to die more often and earlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite? A provision on prescription labels informing users that the medication is to be taken orally. I am grateful they cleared that up for me because I was positive taking a pill rectally was the recommended method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It looks like a nut. It smells like a nut. It tastes like a nut. Then the UK government says it "may" be a nut when your average citizen is too stupid to know what a nut in its shell looks like.
You would think those people with nut allergies would know their enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not only are you suddenly liable for whatever moron didn't recognise a peanut they are allergic to when it comes without a "warning" in a packet labelled "Peanuts", but because pretty much anything in a food factory that deals with nuts may contain nut traces everything has a warning so it's useless to tell what you can actually eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My wife is a nurse and confirms that people get this wrong all the time. Even worse, they've stopped using the term "orally" and started using "by mouth" because too many people didn't understand what was meant by "orally".
Sometimes it's hard not to despair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As we've seen this is pretty much bound to succeed epically. In failing =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think in terms of info, then
Considering that there are all sorts of government groups, I think that statement is rather broad.
As for the issue of providing info to consumers, imagine everyone wearing Google glasses, and as they look at everything in front of them, up pops info about that object, person, or place.
That could be quite useful. You could see what's in the food you are about to eat, the medicines you are about to take, the hazards in your surroundings.
People like me actually do pay attention to info like that.
People already appreciate traffic info, telling them when there's an accident ahead. People have also appreciated weather warnings, even if sometimes the weather is more or less severe than predicted. We can get both traffic and weather updates minute-by-minute and some people like all of that info.
So I don't know that the issue is to reduce the info people get. Whenever I have to sign a medical consent form, for example, I actually read it and learn about the potential hazards for the procedure. That leads to a discussion with my doctor. That's a good thing, I think.
What may seem to be overkill to some people may be insufficient info/warnings to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think in terms of info, then
It's one thing if it's dangerous, or has been linked to problems in humans in doses around the amount that's in the product. But, most of these have caused problems in rodents when they are directly exposed to extremely high levels. These kinds of grossly exaggerated and overly abundant warnings don't help warn people, it just makes them assume the warning can be ignored because of every other instance of exaggeration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
And that's a business problem rather than a government problem. If your company has provided adequate warning, maybe you'll be less likely to be sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When common sense is rare...
People injuring themselves because common sense is rare in their community should have their suit tossed out before it even reaches the docket, made to pay the court for wasting their time. Call it a stupid tax, the benefits of which can be used to fund a massive party celebrating the end of ambulance chasing lawyers.
But perhaps this solution is a bit undercooked too. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When common sense is rare...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When common sense is rare...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think in terms of info, then
Living Social was hacked, affecting 50 million people. Now, I think people want to know when companies get hacked. I don't believe they become indifferent to each incident as there are more of them. Cumulatively it probably alerts them that their data isn't necessarily safe from hackers and they either need to take steps themselves to protect themselves or they need to demand more security on the part of the companies they deal with.
And then there is this. Would it be better not to tell people that these companies can unexpectedly fold and they will lose their money?
Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing (Wired UK): "A study of the Bitcoin exchange industry has found that 45 percent of exchanges fail, taking their users' money with them. Those that survive are the ones that handle the most traffic -- but they are also the exchanges that suffer the greatest number of cyber attacks."
Seems to me that with all the info being exchanged in the world these days, people are going to get warnings about all sorts of things. I don't think that is going away and I don't think people actually want it to go away. My guess is that they do want to be warned about the hazards and then if they choose to ignore those warnings, so be it. I also think there would be a bigger backlash if info is kept from them than if they are warned about dangers that might not turn out to be so worrisome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think in terms of info, then
My company is based in California, and our office supplies frequently come from California.
My scissors have the Prop 65 sticker on them. Guess I won't try to eat my fucking scissors. Everything has the fucking sticker, every box of pencils, every printer cartridge, everything. Starbucks has the sticker. If you're saying that every object in California had the sticker, that wouldn't be enough information for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
What I am saying is that technology will eventually take the stickers away. And that pointing a finger at too much info might be "anti-Internet" in its way. People seem to want the info.
Don't think in terms of "warnings." Think in terms of tags that you can see about everything. That's what AR promises to offer us. Everything will have tags. You can instantly get the back story about everything.
It may not come from "government" but the info will be available. Want to know the hazard of anything? Google glass can show you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Yes.
Look, I actually read the ingredients on labels. Having the info about what is in foods, beauty supplies, household cleaners, lawn care products, etc., is of interest to me and other label readers like me. I don't need the additional warnings because I am already suspicious of certain ingredients and won't buy products/food/cleaning products which have them.
Whether some people do need those warnings, or whether there are better ways to info people is what I would focus upon.
It sounds like the problem in California is in the implementation more than in the info itself. Having stickers on everything doesn't sound very effective. But allowing people to be more aware of everything around that isn't a bad thing.
I'm just trying to point out that "government is bad because it warns people with stickers" perhaps doesn't get at the right issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Having a more informed public isn't a bad thing. And if the info and whatever warnings people want to add can be provided without putting stickers on things, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
The difference is that if in your vision of the future the "total information about a product" is available at the glance of an eye when you want to call it up then it falls into the useful and interesting category, because you have the choice to call it up and read it all or selected bits of it that you want to.
On the other hand, what happens in this utopian future if the government madates that all that information must appear in your glasses every time you look at something "for your own good". Suddenly your Google Glasses become useless because your vision is constantly obscured by a wall of text.
Bottom line - information available good, information rammed down your throat when you don't want it, counterproductive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
If the sticker actually said what the cancer-causing chemical was, how it's used in the business, problematic dose level, if being near it is an issue or if I need to drink it from the bottle before I have to worry, stuff like that, it would be somewhat useful. The problem is that the sticker doesn't distinguish between "there's a measurable chance that you'll get cancer if you go into the wrong room here" and "you'll get cancer if you bathe in toilet cleaner, and they've got toilet cleaner here". Calling it "information" is being too generous.
Terrorist alert levels have a similar issue of failing to convey anything but a general badness sense. They're updated nationally, so I have no idea if the problem is supposed to be where I am or on the other coast somewhere, and furthermore I can't tell if we're expected another plane thing or a marathon thing or if those cyberterrorists we've been hearing so much about have finally managed to hack the power grid. It's the lack of real information that makes the warning useless, not that what information there is was rammed down my throat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
On the other hand, what happens in this utopian future if the government madates that all that information must appear in your glasses every time you look at something "for your own good". Suddenly your Google Glasses become useless because your vision is constantly obscured by a wall of text.
I was pointing out that "government" is vague because there is government at all levels and some of it is definitely citizen-run rather than mandated by politicians/bureaucrats/lawyers. If the citizens within a community want warnings, then they might pass laws mandating warnings. They might want it rather than view it as an imposition.
I was also pointing out that "warnings" is also vague. I read warnings all the time, in news articles, online, etc. I'm not sure the issue is too many warnings. It's more about access to info. If the info is inconvenient, then it could be a problem. But that could be considered a user-design issue. How do you develop a system that best gives people the right information at the right time?
We could be talking about info overload, which has been debated for generations and it might have nothing to do with government or laws.
It's a more nuanced issue than "government issues too many warnings."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Like if you put your google goggles on and look around and everything has a caution sign on it. How useful would that be? People would quickly turn this layer off or filter it. If you want to simultaneously see thousands of warning labels go ahead leave that on. Good luck driving, walking, or sitting and being able to quickly spot a sign or info you actually are looking for. You will never move because you will be able to spend days at any given place reading about all of the objects and their properties around you.
To make your traffic example translate into the discussion better, would it be useful if your google goggles constantly displayed a warning whenever there were cars ahead of you saying "warning there are cars ahead, you could get in accident, cars kill millions every year, you might die." This would happen constantly and you would learn to ignore it. THAT is the point, not that there is too much information out there and we should take that away from people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
That info is true, though. Being in a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident.
What I see as the bigger concern is conveying info to people in ways that actually work.
Climate change is a big issue now. Those who believe we're at a make-or-break point are looking for ways to alert the world of this situation. How does one do that? Is it constant reminders? Is it a catchy slogan? Is it scaring the shit out of people? Is it linking costs so that they immediately feel the effects financially?
My points have been that in this post "government" and "warnings" are rather vague. Government can be good or bad. Any group that develops rules to function is, in my mind, a form of government, so we'll always have governments.
Similarly, warnings can useful or not. What becomes overkill depends on lots of factors and may vary depending on the audience, the message, and so on.
The author of the post lumped product labels in with national security warnings to make a point, but I think the argument as presented is very loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Not according to actual temperature data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Really? Your source of info is different than mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Yes, really.
http://tinyurl.com/d6fmw5q
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled | The Australian: "For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.
"International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years 'at least' to break the long-term warming trend."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
The fact is, we were already supposed to be in a full-blown melt-down according to the predictions these same people were making 10-15 years ago. Now that none of that has come to pass, and the opposite seems to be happening, they're backpedaling and saying, "Well, maybe it's 30 to 40 years, but it's still a crisis, so give us money!"
A more honest quote from that article comes from David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation: "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change."
It was never anything but a huge scam from the beginning and now people are waking up and seeing the naked emperor for what he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Now, if you don't trust a large community of scientists, how do you verify anything? If there is evidence that requires a change of thinking, then sooner or later the models and theories will be adjusted.
We've seen with some politicians if the evidence doesn't fit what they want to hear, ignore the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
In Study, Past Decade Ranks Among Hottest - WSJ.com: "New research suggests average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years, a finding that offers a long-term context for assessing modern-day climate change."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
http://www.thegwpf.org/we-cooling-period-lasts-200-250-years-russian-scientists-claim/
IPCC Predicted Decrease, Observations Show Increase In Antarctic Sea Ice
http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-ipcc-predicted-decrease-observations-show-increase-antarctic-sea -ice/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But honestly, if you have a large number of scientists adding research to the discussion and you're citing one particular place as the source of the other side, I don't think it will be enough to counter momentum about climate change.
Yes, scientists have been revising their models. From what I have been reading, they are revising them to say the globe appears to be warming faster than what they predicted before. As a group they aren't tossing out their conclusions. If you want to say they are all part of a vast conspiracy, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
> this organization.
Of course there is. They're not towing the party line. Anyone who disagrees with the dogma on the subject of AGW is considered suspect by those who have so much invested in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
So you think all of the scientists who think there is global warming are either stupid or part of a mass conspiracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolf
WOLF
WOLF - but i really mean it this time ! honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Night is a wire
Steam in the subway
Earth is afire
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This shallow existence known as Life may cause undesirable effects. In many cases, participants of Life have experienced death, both sudden and prolonged. If you experience death, please consult a physician as permanent termination may occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
behavior of guilds and professions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
So it isn't always government imposing its will on the community. Sometimes it's the community telling the politicians that if they don't support environmentally friendly policies, they will be voted out of office.
Sometimes the regulations the anti-government folks don't like are regulations that citizens insisted upon and value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
However that would seem to have little to do with labelling, which is a good political way of being seen to "do something about a problem" without having to know too much about it or piss off too many people who count (i.e. not the public).
It would seem to me to be incredibly rare for a label to be called for by any community and where it is, as far as I can see it's most often a knee-jerk reaction to some tragic event lobbied for by a vocal minority until some politician either thinks they can score cheap points.
Given that voter turnout means that the people making the laws are generally elected by about 20-30% of the target population I feel faily confident in saying that political response to this kind of "community will" is not necessarily representative of most of the people in the community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
That thought occurred to me, too. The people who feel like a product is dangerous would rather have it banned altogether. Putting a label on it is a half-measure.
But let's look at GMOs. The anti-folks GMO folks (and there are many in my community) want food products labelled if they are made with GMO products so they know what to avoid. They would prefer not to have them at all, but labeling is better than nothing.
Similarly, there are food ingredients that some people believe are unhealthy, but they are still on the market. So labeling at least allows people to make their own decisions.
Now we could argue that labeling and warning are not the same thing and if a product needs a warning to be safe, maybe it shouldn't be offered. Or perhaps people don't need to be warned about anything and it's buyer beware for everything.
I think the warnings are helpful, though, when, for example, your kid has just drunk some cleaning product he found under the sink. If there is a warning, you know you need to do something. If there is no warning, you probably assume there's no real harm to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Normally in any reasonable sized group, there'll be a somewhat larger percentage that, if asked, would say "yeah that sounds about right.. GM is probably bad" and a smaller percentage who think GM is a good idea.
I would wager that those 3 groups added together are less than 1/2 the percentage that really don't give a monkeys' one way or the other.
Assuming the above is anywhere close, it means firstly that the labelling "law" in question is actually wanted or cared about by less than 1/3 of the affected people and for the rest it's just another thing to get in the way on a packet.
And for "labelling better than nothing", if that's true it's only a tiny sliver better than nothing. For a start it's local, so inevitably some "imported" products (i.e. probably most products sold are not made within the jurisdiction of the labelling) are going to slip through the labelling, meaning that even if you care avoiding GM is next to impossible. Is there such a thing as an "acceptable" level of GM in your diet if you believe it's bad? Secondly, before much longer if not already, the way the food chain works means the only difference between GM and "non-GM" is whether it's deliberate or not.
True as far as it goes, but there are 2 threshold problems with that statement:
The first is, as above, how many people care? Yes, if it's a bottle of drain cleaner or something definitely directly harmful, enough people care that it's probably worth labelling. For more nebulous stuff like GM, do enough people care to make it worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. You clearly do and that's great but society as a whole? Even for something as contentious as GM foods? Not so sure. You could be right, you could be wrong and history will tell, but where's the threshold for such nebulous threats? How many people need to be concerned about it to stick labels on anything? And the point the article makes is that the more warnings you put on things the less attention people are likely to pay to the more imminent ones.
This leads me to the second, related threshold problem - packaging. You can only make it so big. The more warnings you shove onto packaging, the harder it is to read any of them and that just adds to the "which one(s) do I care about?" problem.
What happens if your bottle of drain cleaner as well as having the "this'll eat through enigine blocks and definitely won't do your stomach any good" label, also has a carcenogenic label, a GM label, a "may contain nuts" label, a "not safe to use while driving" label a "mandatory eye protection needed" label, and a dozen others that someone somewhere has decided we need to care about? How the hell do you even notice, never mind find and read at 2point font size, the "what to do when injested bit" after your kid swallows the stuff? Or do you make a point to read and memorize every single label of cleaning products you buy?
As an example the other way, I have a fish allergy and have endless fun at buffet lunches (common because seminars, conferences and briefings and such like are part of my work) trying to spot the stuff with fish in so I don't scare the other delegates by going funny colours. It's rarely labelled. Now I don't think it should be - it's my problem to deal with and I have a tongue and common sense - but shellfish allergies can be as deadly as nut allergies. This brings me to wonder why, when every single cake or pastry in the shops has a "may contain nuts" label, not one has a "may contain shellfish". Hell, there are plenty of potentially deadly allergies, why not add them all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
But that's how it works. If one group cares enough to push for legislation and others don't care enough to bother, the activists get their way.
It actually fits well with so much I see on Techdirt. Some of the issues concerning copyright and the Internet matter hugely here but I often point out that most voters are not going to make a decision about who they vote for based on those issues.
Where I live, it's a liberal, tech-savvy community. Our representative made lots of money as a tech entrepreneur and tends to support issues that matter to the tech community. However, the local voters tend to be even more passionate about environmental issues and social causes and would likely base their votes on those more than tech issues. A tech-supportive, but overall politically conservative candidate wouldn't get elected here.
This leads me to the second, related threshold problem - packaging. You can only make it so big. The more warnings you shove onto packaging, the harder it is to read any of them and that just adds to the "which one(s) do I care about?" problem.
I've already agreed to that, pointing out that we're talking about an info delivery system, which could be refined, which is a different issue than the more generic concept that "government issues too many warnings." That's been my point. "Government" and "warnings" are too broadly defined in the article to be much more preaching to the choir about the evils of government. And as I continue to point out, everyone has government. So it's a matter of what government. A culture of locally-run cooperatives involves government, hopefully one that reflects the wishes of each small group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
However, advocating breaking down government into smaller, more manageable units is something where you might find agreement among a diverse group of people, including those on the far left and the far right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Except we've had an "info delivery system" capable of this kind of refinement for years now and exactly ZERO attempt to refine anything along these lines, just more and more and more "warnings" that 99% of the population don't care about.
The problem is not the technology, it's groups of people thinking they know better than anyone else what everyone needs to know and seeing it as their duty to "do something about it". Whoever initiates this, the instument by which the mandated "warning" is delivered is usually governmental at some level and people do not make the distiction - it's a "government issued warning" and gets lumped in the brain with all the other pointless "warnings" and nannying that comes from such sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
The article lumped product warnings in with national security warnings.
If we want to confine the discussion to how best to warn people about safely using products, I'm all for it because we are getting into specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Of course the intent may be different - I suspect packaging warnings are more often motivated by some do-gooding sense, whearas security seems more about scaring the population enough to accept egregious abbridgements of civil liberties. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps both are more about the legal/political ramifications of having been seen to have "done nothing" even when nothing is the best course.
Either way, though, both end up with the same effect in the mind - low level noise that gets ignored and ultimately has the exact opposite effect of the one stated. The real warning about the caustic effects of a cleaner get lost in the dozens upon dozens of irrelevant ones, the warning of an imminent terrorist attack gets a "yeah? So what?" response because of the "It's all so dangerous out there and we have to protect you" notices issued every single day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
And what I have wanted to point out is that there is no "government as a whole." My local city government is a different beast than the US Congress.
It is possible to break down government into small units which reflect the wishes of the people within those small units and to operate based on a consensus within the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
The differences you describe are mostly semantic rather than real and any such "small units" still typically have little to do with majority opinion or even empirical evidence over pet theories or the financial urgings of special interests so I'm not sure what it achieves anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Saying you are against "government" doesn't say much, because there are many different forms of government. Here's an example.
How a Community-Based Co-op Economy Might Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
And no, I am not "against government". I am not an anarchist. However, it is fair to say I am unimpressed with the current governmental structure pretty much top to bottom and don't see it improving any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
But, I'm not sure what you are saying. That people can be difficult? Yes.
Look at some of the P2P experiments, like Wikipedia. People set them up, see what works, and then hopefully modify things as they go along when they run into problems.
I think it is impossible NOT to have government. The challenge is to keep working at the models to find something that works. And when you have groups that can't get along, they split into smaller groups that can get along. If you can offer an endless choice of government options, presumably everyone can find something that works for each of them.
It's kind of what happens with religion. You get sects that split off because people decide they want something different. And the sects spawn more sects. Some sects stay small; some grow huge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Of course, conservatives have been doing the same thing. That's why I view with a lot of skepticism the commitment by most people and their elected officials to actually stop telling people want to do.
Yes, I know that true libertarians are much more inclined to eliminate laws that hope to control social behaviors than conservatives are, but true libertarians are still relatively small in number.
The alliance of libertarians and religious conservatives doesn't really work for me because they seem to represent vastly different philosophies about personal freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Similarly, there is fracking going on in another part of the state next to organic farms. The farmers are concerned about pollution affecting their land.
So in some places it is a bigger issue than just a consumer issue.
What I have been hoping to point out is that within communities what constitutes a threat may differ from community to community. If you believe in citizen involvement, then you have to allow for small communities making their own rules, especially if there is consensus within the community.
Now, if the community wants to do something that would be considered a violation of human rights, then authorities outside the community will step in, but if it's a matter of rules that the community wants to enforce and everyone is on board, what is the issue with that?
The big national debate is about whether the interests of business can trump the interests of people, and if the people collectively decide what they want, even if businesses complain, what's wrong with that? If the businesses want to relocate, they can and probably will. But the community may decide it doesn't want those businesses anyway, especially if the businesses happen to be polluting the local area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect, exactly what you want
so you would rather them be annoying as well as noticeable ??
Seems like a warning that is "noticeable but not annoying" is exactly what you want.
if the Government has achieved "noticeable but not annoying" they have achieved their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfect, exactly what you want
do you really have to pay it your full attention to understand the warning ? is it not sufficient that you notice it, and your brain works it out for you instantly ??
or do you have to pay it your full attention and ponder the meaning of the warning.
Are you the type of person who will walk over the cliff, while putting all your attention on trying to understand and contemplate the sign that says "Danger Cliff" ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuts - Anaphylactic Shock
It is also VERY COMMON.
ANYTHING WITH NUTS in it,, yes, that includes NUTS, HAS to have that warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuts - Anaphylactic Shock
"darryl. WARNING: NUTS."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuts - Anaphylactic Shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuts - Anaphylactic Shock
> NUTS, HAS to have that warning.
Wouldn't the packaging of peanuts itself be enough warning that the thing contains peanuts?
I mean, to anyone with a functioning brain, that is.
And if you somehow are unable to read the huge PLANTERS PEANUTS label on the front of the jar, why in the hell would you be able to read a little warning label on the back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety for all - a real-world example.
So, somebody had the bright idea of making such door entry systems mandatory on Council tenements. They assumed that if you reduced the break-ins to one property by 25% by fitting one, then you would reduce *all* break-ins by 25% if you fitted them everywhere.
This proved to be erroneous logic. The overall level of break-ins was unchanged. All that happened was that the distribution of them levelled out so that the door entry system no longer provided a "bonus". What they thought was an indication that a thief had been thwarted was simply a sign they moved on to somewhere that offered an easier target; the total number of crimes was unchanged.
But what it did do was inconvenience every person living in a tenement, with folk buzzing every flat in the block all hours of the day and night trying to get in, and continuing "service charges" to keep the systems working.
In the end, the whole "perceived safety" came at the cost of making everybody just that little bit more miserable on an ongoing basis. Almost exactly the same would have been achieved if, at the very beginning, they had *outlawed* such door-entry systems. The only people who would have lost out from such an action were the people who install and maintain door-entry systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama warns Syria: Chem Weapons use 'Game Changer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama must act on Syria chemical weapons
�Red line.� ��� �Enormous consequences.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Red Line" stance evokes amusement among rebels
When Assad used aeroplanes to bomb his own people, he crossed a red line. When Assad bombed cities, he crossed a red line. When Assad used Scuds, he crossed a red line.
Amusing.
�
�
(P.S. Deep apologies to those of you who process information differently: I understand that the typical American communication style is both direct and implicitly judgmental. And I realize that the mere presention of news snippets without commentary drives some of you bat-shit crazy. Sorry 'bout that. I understand you hate other peoples' communication styles�but no intent to offend.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Humiliation' for Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Syria Agrees to Russians and Blames Turkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intervention in Syria is inevitable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- If you see anything, regurgitate something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if the last word in this sentence is instead supposed to be "credibility". ("Credulity does not make sense in the context.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey!
What if a warning label falls off a toy and chokes a kid? Will there be a little warning label on the bigger warning label from thenceforth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Ir)rational risk analysis
As the Cato Institute observes the probability of being killed by a police officer is about eight times the probability of being killed by a terrorist, but we will cede more and more power to the police (increasing the likelihood of dying in a misplaced no-knock raid) to "protect" us from terrorists. Ingredients in food or medications which on balance in small doses have beneficial health effects are banned if massive doses of the same chemical cause cancer in rats. I trust the reader can multiply examples almost ad infinitum.
In each case, the overblown risk is invariably used as an excuse for the expansion of government (in the American context, most often Federal government) power. Woe to politicians if the populace ever develops the ability to rationally weigh risks: as H.L. Mencken observed, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (Ir)rational risk analysis
But we could argue probability issues on all sorts of things and how people irrationally respond to real and perceived threats.
In each case, the overblown risk is invariably used as an excuse for the expansion of government (in the American context, most often Federal government) power.
One could also argue that the US operates that way throughout the world. The anti-military libertarians and the anti-military left probably could find a meeting of the minds on that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Ir)rational risk analysis
Or motor car deaths ???
how is the Government 'expanding it's power".
Get over it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fnord
In the Shea/Wilson construct, fnords are scattered liberally in the text of newspapers and magazines, causing fear and anxiety in those following current events."
-- Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This...
Also, the bridge ahead is out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goal achieved !! exactly what you want, do you think if the warning signs were not there that the statistics of you being hurt by that thing is reduced ?
if you have a 0.00001% chance of contracting cancer from a product, is that going to change if you are warned about it or not ?
Would you be better off by not knowing that ? (probably not if you use that product).
do you think you are going to care about the 'statistics' of getting cancer from using that product if you get that cancer ??
"hardly any people die from using our product so we did not bother to warn you that SOME PEOPLE DO DIE FROM IT".
That is not going to help you much if you are one of those WHO WILL DIE from it..
at least if you are informed, you can then in turn make an informed decision about it's use.
You can say, sure there is a 0.000001% chance it will kill me, but there is an 90% that it will do me some good, the risk (in your informed opinion) is worth it, or not.
I wonder that is the ratio of health and safety warnings to advertisements is?
I am sure it would be in the thousands or millions to 1, adds as clearly buried much deeper in the 'white noise' that health and safety warnings will ever be. And far less useful or informative.
Also some of these chemicals used for cleaning in restaurants and other places might be reasonably safe, until something like a fire, where they produce deadly fumes. These warnings are for that purpose as well as for the general public. To be aware of these potential hazards.
There is also a common medical condition where you are hypersensitive to industrial chemicals, and people highly allergic to certain foods. So these people should not be warned about what is contained in the products and services they use ?
I guess if you are on the side of advertisers, and in the pocket of the 'great advertiser' Google. then you want all that warning sign space filled with money making adds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem is not terror or terrorists but a culture/society that is itself terrorized. Panic is always to be feared especially if whole sections of society panics. Its a subtle basic low take on the 'why wars start' level of analysis. Its also bad when society sections itself up to much. Culturally unhealthy.
Few topics have resulted in more thrown away essays than this one. The fear of fear is a complex subject. Being subject to all of that makes any response an exorcise in self delusion. (of which everyone suffers from including me)
There are many dangers out there in real life that we know of only because of science and technology. Warnings are good but if overdone intrusion into normal life will lead to ignoring the same warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The threats that worry many Techdirtians don't strike me as nearly as big a threat as other issues.
Driving Is Deadlier Than Terrorism; Why Isn't It Scarier? - Blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't get into the IP discussions. But when the conversation drifts into government or economic issues I comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I tend to jump ahead to what develops in the post-IP world and particularly how that might foster a more sustainable approach to the planet.
If the primary result of dropping copyright is to make life easier for Google, then I don't think we've accomplished much. I'd rather focus on how we change ownership and business so that there isn't really any need for companies as big as Google. Right now our financial system tends to reward big and growing companies. But I'd like to look at alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that getting rid of them will have little effect on Google, as it has grown by being very good at providing services, and not by owning IP. If IP laws are abolished, then its idea of becoming a major library system does not popse much of a problem, because anybody else could take the same data and try and compete with them. Further I suspect this effort has more to do with the data not being available online, that a desire to be the worlds library. If others make the data available, Google will be happy to incorporate it into their Indexes for searching.
In the case of Google, a large problem, indexing the worlds Knowledge, requires a large company to carry out. Making this knowledge freely available will empower people in solving their own problems, significantly reducing the power of large corporations, and religious fundamentalists.
This is a anarchistic view, give people the knowledge to solve their own problems, and the means of enabling them to organise themselves, and they will solve their own problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe it can, too. But I have wondered whether those big companies which have grown big using the Internet will readily step aside to accommodate this. As I look at the world's increasing concentration of wealth and power, I don't see a push from those currently in power to hand it over. There are all sorts of justifications about why they have become rich and powerful and perhaps deserve it, but I wonder what they might do if their hold on the current world economic system is challenged.
One reason I am concerned about this is that based on what I have read coming from those living/working in Silicon Valley, there is a disconnect between their lives/their worldview and what happens elsewhere. So my impressions are being formed by what they say about themselves and how they think the world operates or should operate.
There are disruptive forces in the world, but to be disruptive for the next generation, I don't think you can be part of the system that funds and reinforces the way things work in Silicon Valley and the larger financial/economic systems. When the system depends on rich people funding companies to make the same group of people even more rich, it's not all that disruptive.
If your goal in being disruptive is to create a company that makes you and your investors wealthy, will you take the necessary steps to be disruptive when it disrupts what you have built or trying to build?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People continually point to it as a fundraising platform, and how that can replace more traditional fundraising platforms. But I think it's real potential is that it might get more of us thinking in terms of discrete projects rather than companies. A group of people can come together to create a project, get it funded on Kickstarter or something similar, and then perhaps move on to a new project.
The lack of business structure has been a negative for some Kickstarter projects because there have been people successfully raising money and then not being very skilled at the necessary steps afterward. If there are enough projects where donors become dissatisfied for one reason or another, it could hurt Kickstarter and other similar sites.
However, if the Kickstarter project-by-project approach changes people's ideas about whether it is necessary to build companies, then that will be quite disruptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if you put it to a vote?
But what if you put to a vote whether or not to eliminate specific warnings? And what if voters wanted to keep them in?
Would you support them then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if you put it to a vote?
California Proposition 65 (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Proposition 65 (formally titled "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986") is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%-37% margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverse Example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insanity as Sanity
Sound insane, why of course it does, just look at the result, ever growing paranoia and insanity all looked upon as being normal. When you let the insane run the asylum, expect insanity paraded about as normality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toxic Ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
x
[ link to this | view in chronology ]