undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgumby6y ago0 comments

That cuts both ways. Look at California Prop 65: it’s so widely applicable that the posted signs are ubiquitous and thus meaningless.

I don’t have a fix for this problem and I do have a bias for more info; just saying it isn’t obvious.

0 comments

perl4ever6y ago

Those warnings are useless not because they're ubiquitous, but because they don't specify the reason/ingredient. I'm not sure whether that's allowed by the law, or it's just that the law isn't fully enforced.

So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.

emodendroket6y ago

Also, a neutral description of the things used without a warning per se should be fine for consumers who care about avoiding them.

perl4ever6y ago

I feel like the phrase "neutral description of the things used" might be loaded.

Everybody seems to have "warnings" these days like "Cancer and reproductive harm". That's not a warning or a description.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsgumby6y ago0 comments

That cuts both ways. Look at California Prop 65: it’s so widely applicable that the posted signs are ubiquitous and thus meaningless.

I don’t have a fix for this problem and I do have a bias for more info; just saying it isn’t obvious.

0 comments

perl4ever6y ago

So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.

emodendroket6y ago

Also, a neutral description of the things used without a warning per se should be fine for consumers who care about avoiding them.

perl4ever6y ago

I feel like the phrase "neutral description of the things used" might be loaded.

Everybody seems to have "warnings" these days like "Cancer and reproductive harm". That's not a warning or a description.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse