5 ms·
It’s definitely not like extending it to the keyboard manufacturer, that’s the reddest of red herrings. They intentionally signed off on a feature that encourag
by mlazos 7y ago
It’s definitely not like extending it to the keyboard manufacturer, that’s the reddest of red herrings. They intentionally signed off on a feature that encourages a physician (in a position of trust) to prescribe opioids. The keyboard or tools to build the software had absolutely nothing to do with this unethical decision. It was a ux design decision which they all certainly knew what its intention was (or they were incompetent af).
- sneak 7y agoThe software can’t write prescriptions. The software can not force people to ingest pills.
- mlazos 7y agoYour argument rationalizes literally every dark pattern in ux that has ever existed. No of course there isn't a gun to anyone's head here. That's not the point that anyone is arguing. The point is that it encourages someone in a position of trust to act against a patient's interest. They at least share blame with the physician. I'd say most of the blame, because if this feature didn't exist, the physician wouldn't act against the patient's self interest. The world isn't black and white, it's why manslaughter exists as a crime and why we don't just have murder.
- sneak 7y agoNobody is forced to write such software, either. Assigning responsibility for actions with clear boundaries does not “rationalize” anything. It is important to remember that humans, regardless of their level of ignorance, are responsible for themselves and their own actions. Encouraging people to make bad decisions isn’t the issue at all, even if the final result would not have happened without such encouragement.