3 ms·

The Risk Makers: The nuclear, auto, and food industries

15 points by ColinWright 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago
I gave up when the author blamed whitness and maleness for the Burmese genocide...
- cjbenedikt 6y ago
  Author was quoting a piece of research. Why would that stop you from reading?
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    It wasn't a quote, it was something they choose to include. And it was one too many unfounded assumption presented as if it was a fact. Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true. Tying a dozen or so claims together is all the more likely to be untrue overall. And that was the whole article as far as I made it...
dredmorbius 6y ago
This should be mandatory reading for all of the tech sector. Engineers, founders, investors, VC, marketing, QA, PMs, counsel, sales, janatorial and cafeteria staff. Long (~30pp printed) but rewarding.
jacquesm 6y ago
Researching the abuse potential of what you put out online is an important step in making sure you remain in control of the narrative around your offering. If you don't do that one day you will wake up to find out that you are now co-founder of something that you abhor.
karaterobot 6y ago
If Facebook has 35,000 people working on safety and security, and knows it is now under scrutiny, yet still shits the bed like clockwork, what solution is going to fix this to our satisfaction? I'm not really sure there is a viable prevention strategy here. The problem of social networks is the problem of human nature multiplied by technology, and the regulatory fixes we're likely to try seem either quaint or dystopian. The level of oversight and regulation the nuclear, auto, and food industries operate under would be considered crippling in a consumer-facing social network space. Batya Friedman (whose opinion I already respected) alludes to this in the article. If these companies need an impact study to be done and an appointed panel to sign off on new features, they'll just lose out to competing foreign products without that oversight. My government can prevent me from buying an unsafe foreign car, but at present they don't generally stop me from signing up for unsafe foreign social networks. I'm sure I don't want them to get into that practice, either. I ask myself whether I would want the Trump administration overseeing social networks, and by extension do I want an indeterminate future administration to have that role either? Probably not, nor do I believe any committee or panel would be truly above the reach of politics. In any case, risk management begins by assuming risks are not entirely preventable, so quick and effective mitigation should be part of any robust solution. Though it may prevent some disasters, I'm skeptical whether more bureaucratic oversight helps quickly address them when they arise. There's even reason for me to think that social media is complex and unique enough from nuclear, auto, and food that the existing oversight model may not even be useful if extended into this space. In short, I am not confident in the government's ability to come up with something new and brilliant enough to regulate this space effectively. I think this is the quote that sums up the problem for me: > “We may decide we’re not wise enough for certain kinds of tools, or certain kinds of companies"

15 points by ColinWright 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago

I gave up when the author blamed whitness and maleness for the Burmese genocide...

cjbenedikt 6y ago
Author was quoting a piece of research. Why would that stop you from reading?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  It wasn't a quote, it was something they choose to include. And it was one too many unfounded assumption presented as if it was a fact. Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true. Tying a dozen or so claims together is all the more likely to be untrue overall. And that was the whole article as far as I made it...

dredmorbius 6y ago

This should be mandatory reading for all of the tech sector. Engineers, founders, investors, VC, marketing, QA, PMs, counsel, sales, janatorial and cafeteria staff. Long (~30pp printed) but rewarding.

jacquesm 6y ago

Researching the abuse potential of what you put out online is an important step in making sure you remain in control of the narrative around your offering. If you don't do that one day you will wake up to find out that you are now co-founder of something that you abhor.

karaterobot 6y ago

If Facebook has 35,000 people working on safety and security, and knows it is now under scrutiny, yet still shits the bed like clockwork, what solution is going to fix this to our satisfaction? I'm not really sure there is a viable prevention strategy here. The problem of social networks is the problem of human nature multiplied by technology, and the regulatory fixes we're likely to try seem either quaint or dystopian. The level of oversight and regulation the nuclear, auto, and food industries operate under would be considered crippling in a consumer-facing social network space. Batya Friedman (whose opinion I already respected) alludes to this in the article. If these companies need an impact study to be done and an appointed panel to sign off on new features, they'll just lose out to competing foreign products without that oversight. My government can prevent me from buying an unsafe foreign car, but at present they don't generally stop me from signing up for unsafe foreign social networks. I'm sure I don't want them to get into that practice, either. I ask myself whether I would want the Trump administration overseeing social networks, and by extension do I want an indeterminate future administration to have that role either? Probably not, nor do I believe any committee or panel would be truly above the reach of politics. In any case, risk management begins by assuming risks are not entirely preventable, so quick and effective mitigation should be part of any robust solution. Though it may prevent some disasters, I'm skeptical whether more bureaucratic oversight helps quickly address them when they arise. There's even reason for me to think that social media is complex and unique enough from nuclear, auto, and food that the existing oversight model may not even be useful if extended into this space. In short, I am not confident in the government's ability to come up with something new and brilliant enough to regulate this space effectively. I think this is the quote that sums up the problem for me: > “We may decide we’re not wise enough for certain kinds of tools, or certain kinds of companies"