3 ms·
A process where any idea is always given consideration is naturally highly vulnerable to sybil attacks. For example, there's a reason why once upon a time we h
by heavenlyblue 9y ago
A process where any idea is always given consideration is naturally highly vulnerable to sybil attacks.
For example, there's a reason why once upon a time we had agreed (as a society) to never accept any new potents for perpetual motion machines - because the only ideas that were left are the bad ones, and we can prove it.
Now if there comes a time in history when the laws of physics suddenly discover something new - we may re-approach our decision. But I don't think many educated people believe it's going to happen anytime soon.
- bkohlmann 9y agoThat's the point though - we only know that perpetual motion machines are not yet possible because nearly every testable idea we've come up yields nothing. Our system is better for allowing, and dismissing, bad ideas than never allowing them at all.
- mrgordon 9y agoI'm not sure where you're going with this. Facebook allowed these terrible ideas to proliferate which is why we have lost our privacy and rights to "subtle language" and "questionable policies." Now people are acting like the choice is between allowing these ideas or not allowing them. In reality, its much more nuanced. It turns out a lot of people think the ideas are horrible, offensive, and immoral. Thus Facebook can continue to embrace these ideas and lose employees and public respect, or they can not embrace these ideas and hopefully recover some reputation. It isn't about "disallowing" these ideas. Its about not building a business around screwing people over if you don't want to be known for screwing people over. Something can be allowed without memos from top ranking managers dictating that this is the way the business runs (and will run in the future in China)