3 ms·
It's almost as though...we as a society continually assess whether the harm from some activity exceeds benefit, and react accordingly? Or maybe we're starting
by candu 7y ago
It's almost as though...we as a society continually assess whether the harm from some activity exceeds benefit, and react accordingly?
Or maybe we're starting to expect that people building things have responsibility to foresee potential harms arising from their use, whether or not part of the intended use case, and to build in an equitable way?
After all, if "inadvertently deepens abject poverty" is a possible outcome of a tool you're building, maybe the problem is with the design and not the people using it.
- aeorgnoieang 7y agoI'm pretty sure actually, uniformly enforcing all of the currently existing labor laws would 'inadvertently deepen abject poverty' too. There are a lot of people working black or gray market jobs (i.e. workers for whom the 'employment' relationship is itself illegal, at least in some aspects) already. There are tens of millions of people in the U.S. that are not legally permitted to reside here, let alone work. Are you also in favor of actually enforcing those laws and either preventing them from working or deporting them? > It's almost as though...we as a society continually assess whether the harm from some activity exceeds benefit, and react accordingly? I do not think that U.S. society, or any country really, could be even approximately described like this, accurately. As just one example, minimum wage laws were originally introduced to prevent minorities (e.g. black people) from undercutting the wages of ethnic-majority workers (i.e. 'white' people). As another, a large number of U.S. states require certification or licensing for people to cut or style other's hair. I am extremely skeptical that such laws or regulations were enacted because a fair cost-benefit analysis implied that such were reasonable.