4 ms·

Facebook should bear the brunt. In a more reasonable arrangement (in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability), these people would be direct emplo

Facebook should bear the brunt. In a more reasonable arrangement (in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability), these people would be direct employees of Facebook.

jefftk 6y ago
> in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability Do you think this in general, or just for content moderation? For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident? did you mean to phrase this differently? isn't that the primary purpose of having car insurance?
  - jefftk 6y ago
    My parent was saying that the generator of risk should always bear the liability, which confused me because there are many situations in our society where a third-party agrees to take it on in exchange for a fee. I described car insurance, as one of those situations.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      You do bear the liability for the risks you create by driving your car. Paying your car insurance company premiums means they agree to pay up to a certain amount of money for you to cover damage, but that doesn't remove your liability. In addition to the fact that it's you paying the premiums, if you get a ticket, it's still you that gets points on your license; if you injure someone because you were driving recklessly, it's still you that gets sued (and if the damages awarded are more than your insurance covers, you're still on the hook for the rest); if you injure someone while driving under the influence, it's still you who gets charged with a crime.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      ah I see. I don't view insurance as shifting the liability itself (more like a payment plan for the expected value of the liability), but I can see why you might look at it that way.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident? Reasonable? I’d describe it as mandatory, and not even a question in no-fault jurisdictions. It doesn’t exempt you from criminal charges if you did it, say, intentionally.
- gmadsen 6y ago
  car insurance doesn't remove liability, it will pay agreed upon sums of money to cover damages, but certainly anything criminal will still be pursued. And people can sue you for more than your insurance might cover.
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but in the UK you can buy comprehensive insurance that will cover damage to your car as well as the other person if you caused the accident.

Facebook should bear the brunt. In a more reasonable arrangement (in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability), these people would be direct employees of Facebook.

jefftk 6y ago

> in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability Do you think this in general, or just for content moderation? For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident?

leetcrew 6y ago
> For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident? did you mean to phrase this differently? isn't that the primary purpose of having car insurance?
- jefftk 6y ago
  My parent was saying that the generator of risk should always bear the liability, which confused me because there are many situations in our society where a third-party agrees to take it on in exchange for a fee. I described car insurance, as one of those situations.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    You do bear the liability for the risks you create by driving your car. Paying your car insurance company premiums means they agree to pay up to a certain amount of money for you to cover damage, but that doesn't remove your liability. In addition to the fact that it's you paying the premiums, if you get a ticket, it's still you that gets points on your license; if you injure someone because you were driving recklessly, it's still you that gets sued (and if the damages awarded are more than your insurance covers, you're still on the hook for the rest); if you injure someone while driving under the influence, it's still you who gets charged with a crime.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    ah I see. I don't view insurance as shifting the liability itself (more like a payment plan for the expected value of the liability), but I can see why you might look at it that way.
arcticbull 6y ago
> For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance that covers me if I cause an accident? Reasonable? I’d describe it as mandatory, and not even a question in no-fault jurisdictions. It doesn’t exempt you from criminal charges if you did it, say, intentionally.
gmadsen 6y ago
car insurance doesn't remove liability, it will pay agreed upon sums of money to cover damages, but certainly anything criminal will still be pursued. And people can sue you for more than your insurance might cover.
mcintyre1994 6y ago
I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but in the UK you can buy comprehensive insurance that will cover damage to your car as well as the other person if you caused the accident.