5 ms·

> There definitely is a difference between someone accidentally tracking dog poo into your house vs someone doing it intentionally; in the first case, you all t

> There definitely is a difference between someone accidentally tracking dog poo into your house vs someone doing it intentionally; in the first case, you all them to clean it up, and in the second case you break the friendship and/or seek criminal prosection. But the point is that this assumes you're able to tell the difference between the two cases- intent is often a really hard thing to prove. And often discussions about whether Facebook acted in good faith when it did certain things neglect the fact that they made a big mess everywhere, that needs sorting out regardless of their intent.

perfunctory 7y ago
> hard thing to prove It is and yet the legal system is busy with these sorts of proves all the time. e.g. if you have a professional insurance and caused some damage by mistake - that's covered, if you cause damage deliberately - it's not.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sarcasmOrTears 7y ago
It's hard to prove but for some strange reason they always have the resources when it's time to come after the little guy and they don't when it's the big guy and it's also more obvious
dhimes 7y ago
But if we can reduce that to a second-order effect we will be better off. For example, if you made the rule ('regulation') that "shoes shall not be worn in the house" then you can avert the situation and never need to try to determine motivation. I think this is basic good that regulations- thoughtful ones- serv. Because if Facebook makes money by being evil, then their competitors will be pressured to do the same in order to stay in business. But by leveling the playing field you can help prevent these monopolies from getting so big and powerful. We can't rely on businesses to act "morally." That ship has sailed. We have to compel them to behave, not by social shaming but by making non-compliance painful and repeated non-compliance an existential threat.

perfunctory 7y ago

> hard thing to prove It is and yet the legal system is busy with these sorts of proves all the time. e.g. if you have a professional insurance and caused some damage by mistake - that's covered, if you cause damage deliberately - it's not.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sarcasmOrTears 7y ago

It's hard to prove but for some strange reason they always have the resources when it's time to come after the little guy and they don't when it's the big guy and it's also more obvious

dhimes 7y ago

But if we can reduce that to a second-order effect we will be better off. For example, if you made the rule ('regulation') that "shoes shall not be worn in the house" then you can avert the situation and never need to try to determine motivation. I think this is basic good that regulations- thoughtful ones- serv. Because if Facebook makes money by being evil, then their competitors will be pressured to do the same in order to stay in business. But by leveling the playing field you can help prevent these monopolies from getting so big and powerful. We can't rely on businesses to act "morally." That ship has sailed. We have to compel them to behave, not by social shaming but by making non-compliance painful and repeated non-compliance an existential threat.