4 ms·

> The problem isn't tech, it's people. Can you imagine if, circa 1900, we had taken this attitude toward workers getting injured in factories? Blame the worker

> The problem isn't tech, it's people. Can you imagine if, circa 1900, we had taken this attitude toward workers getting injured in factories? Blame the worker for allowing their arm to be crushed, rather than the machine for having no safe guards? If we'd gone that route, then industrial accidents would still be one of the leading causes of death, rather than the minor cause of death that it is now. Of course, some business leaders did blame the workers, but leading companies, prodded by the government, looked to make safer procedures as well as safer machines. And so the accident rate came down dramatically. What's happening right now with the tech companies is similar, though it is social in nature. Over the last 20 years people have allowed tech to play a central role in their lives, and they've learned this can have costs and benefits, and now they are looking for ways to reduce those costs. And the costs are social in nature, and the tech can be altered to reduce those costs.

alehul 9y ago
Although I agree with the solution of creating safeguards for the machine, I'm sure the accident rate would've also went down over time as people learned how to avoid them (though not as drastically). There's a huge difference between making a machine safer and filtering news, however. The only downside to safeguarding the machine is the economic cost. With filtering news, it could end up rather dystopian and filter to fit a more complex agenda. We're very cautious in America of any power we designate to a company or especially the government, as every power we assign is only beneficial situationally. When the situation changes, that power will likely stay with that entity, however. Our avoidance of giving away power could be classified as a bend-but-don't-break strategy, in regards to everything from news censorship to constitutional limitations (i.e. gun control).

alehul 9y ago

Although I agree with the solution of creating safeguards for the machine, I'm sure the accident rate would've also went down over time as people learned how to avoid them (though not as drastically). There's a huge difference between making a machine safer and filtering news, however. The only downside to safeguarding the machine is the economic cost. With filtering news, it could end up rather dystopian and filter to fit a more complex agenda. We're very cautious in America of any power we designate to a company or especially the government, as every power we assign is only beneficial situationally. When the situation changes, that power will likely stay with that entity, however. Our avoidance of giving away power could be classified as a bend-but-don't-break strategy, in regards to everything from news censorship to constitutional limitations (i.e. gun control).