Canadian wanderer in Ireland. Trying to make the internet a better place. Bluesky Head of Trust and Safety.
File a report in the app or via [email protected] - not via mentions/replies.
aaronrodericks.com
Aaron Rodericks
Loading...
Played Puerto Rico special edition last night and it was a gorgeous game. Definitely terrible at playing but highly replayable.
Your periodic reminder that people are *more* abusive online when they're using their "real names" than when they're using a persistent pseudonym and this effect has been replicated in literally every study that has ever been done
Only issue with this approach is that in most cases, there isn't any evidence for this policy approach. In fact, there is be clear evidence that a ban clearly harms vulnerable and marginalized kids. Yet bureaucrats will be sent on an expedition to hunt down anyone with a claim that aligns.
The UK announcing the under 16 ban plays the right notes on 'safety' around a byelection. Do they know what's in the law? no idea! When will they write it? Possibly in 6 months, depends how many votes it's getting them. Is there evidence? People told us to do something! We are the party of safety!
Still doesn't work perfectly, cause there's unintended consequences (ie see deadweight loss for taxes) - but overall you have things like years upon years of clear evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and you regulate it to reduce the negative health impacts. No more smoking indoors! Yay!
Another approach that is used FAR more often is what's called policy-based evidence-making. This is when the decision makers and politicians have already landed on the easiest solution that can play out within the span of a mandate to win votes/ie it's simple enough to explain.
They could have just verified Jerry like I did and called it a day
It's been a good few years since I was in government, but the gold standard for making decisions was called evidence-based policy making. You've got years worth of research, studies, and evidence that feed into what's called a logic model that if you do the following via policy = impact.
You'll get US pop psychologists trotted out as evidence, lords and ladies that are deeply involved in the matter, definitely a good selection of aggrieved parents. All of that may be evidence of a *problem* - but is framed as if it's evidence for the solution that they have already chosen.
