Well, to be fair, you cut the 6 important words that show the context:
> We’re working on exciting changes that will make it feel like you’re getting more from Claude
On the other hand, I think the biggest improvement they could do is allow using Claude Code subscriptions from third party harnesses with no strings attached.
I think the problem is with the word feel. Reducing how much you get while saying it'll feel like you're getting more isn't usually a good thing. It's very weasely wording hoping most people will miss that and think what they said was that they're getting more, not that they'll _feel_ like they're getting more.
Yeah, because it's 17% when compared to the current +50% "promotion" they have going. They're raising base weekly limit by 25%. It's still more than non-promotion usage limits.
Imagine the pressure on Instagram and Tiktok to serve better content if they were forced to pick out, say, 100 short videos per person per day. And not just for kids, adults need a break from this addiction machine as well.
Why stop at removing restrictions on social media, why have laws at all, they're just mindless paternalism! why should we have seatbelts? why have laws against murder? Mindless paternalism is all those laws are!
Not all laws are are meant to protect people from themselves, most laws aren't.
Murder isn't illegal because we want to protect people from the results of their actions, it's illegal because we want to protect people from the actions of others. (Or, failing to do that, punish the aggressors in response) Surely you see the difference?
Basically, the argument is that people's liberty should only be restricted up to the point of defending the liberty and rights of others. If an action hurts no one other than its actor, the state has no right to restrict them. People should be free to live in line with their wishes and conscience up to the point of not violating the rights of others.
With regard to seatbelt laws, I would ask the same question, as I do think that the seatbelt laws are also paternalism and morally wrong.
But no one, including the government, is omniscient. This turns all agency into "exploitation", and the only logical conclusion is that all decisions for all people should be made by the most informed. Surely you don't argue that would be a good thing?
The mindless paternalism is the point! People like this want a Nanny State to enforce their own ideals, as they arbitrarily believe themselves to be morally superior.
That’s why these laws happen to begin with. It starts as “Think of the children”, and ends with the death of the anonymized internet.
Governments crave that, and scared, hapless citizens who refuse to learn how to raise a child want Daddy Gubament to do it for them, and so push these laws into existence.
