3 ms·

Are you kidding me? WhatsApp want to be in the hands of the uneducated and illiterate and Zuckerberg takes every chance he gets to say this is going to make th

by kyle-w 10y ago

Are you kidding me? WhatsApp want to be in the hands of the uneducated and illiterate and Zuckerberg takes every chance he gets to say this is going to make the world a better place. If that's the claim they make, they better feel responsible when there are unintended consequences like rural men using the platform as a distribution system for illegal porn. If every time there are unintended consequences in software and bugs don't get filled, guess what the system does not fix itself. This has to be treated the same way.

stinkytaco 10y ago
>If every time there are unintended consequences in software and bugs don't get filled, guess what the system does not fix itself. This has to be treated the same way. I don't think this analogy really holds. It's not a "bug", the system works as intended. The big difference between a system like Facebook or WhatsApp and a telco is not that it's the responsibility of the platform -- WhatsApp is not encouraging abuse -- but the fact that abuse can be monitored for. This raises the interesting question of moral culpability. If the crime can be prevented with certain tools (in this case monitoring tools), is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? It seems that we are shifting more and more to the "yes" end of that spectrum.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  >is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? This is a question the platform needs to answer for itself, and is fundamentally just a 'safety vs. freedom' decision. Some platforms will select for freedom and others will select for safety. Decentralized systems will, by their nature, err on the side on freedom. By the time decentralized networks are viable/usable, I think the general populace will be more interested in such things. The curated, safe experiences will be the dominion of corporations.
- rhizome 10y ago
  If the crime can be prevented with certain tools (in this case monitoring tools), is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? It seems that we are shifting more and more to the "yes" end of that spectrum. This seems related to a question I've had in wake of mass shootings, when others claim that concealed carry (or more guns in general) would have changed the outcome: should those carrying guns in the vicinity be blamed for not entering the fray?

by kyle-w 10y ago

stinkytaco 10y ago

>If every time there are unintended consequences in software and bugs don't get filled, guess what the system does not fix itself. This has to be treated the same way. I don't think this analogy really holds. It's not a "bug", the system works as intended. The big difference between a system like Facebook or WhatsApp and a telco is not that it's the responsibility of the platform -- WhatsApp is not encouraging abuse -- but the fact that abuse can be monitored for. This raises the interesting question of moral culpability. If the crime can be prevented with certain tools (in this case monitoring tools), is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? It seems that we are shifting more and more to the "yes" end of that spectrum.

narrowrail 10y ago
>is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? This is a question the platform needs to answer for itself, and is fundamentally just a 'safety vs. freedom' decision. Some platforms will select for freedom and others will select for safety. Decentralized systems will, by their nature, err on the side on freedom. By the time decentralized networks are viable/usable, I think the general populace will be more interested in such things. The curated, safe experiences will be the dominion of corporations.
rhizome 10y ago
If the crime can be prevented with certain tools (in this case monitoring tools), is it the responsibility of the platform to do so? It seems that we are shifting more and more to the "yes" end of that spectrum. This seems related to a question I've had in wake of mass shootings, when others claim that concealed carry (or more guns in general) would have changed the outcome: should those carrying guns in the vicinity be blamed for not entering the fray?