3 ms·

I did think I’d made it extremely explicit that I don’t think any of that at all, but perhaps not (although the way you throw in a rather childish ad hominem sn

I did think I’d made it extremely explicit that I don’t think any of that at all, but perhaps not (although the way you throw in a rather childish ad hominem sneer suggests you’re not thinking very clearly). What I actually wrote is that though (of course!) there will always be some bad behaviour, we want to minimise it (I compare it to malware, for heaven’s sake), but moderation might not be the best way to minimise it, and we might need different models. As it happens, I would suggest that the idea that somehow we CAN just stop all of bad human behaviour online would be the most extreme techno-utopianism possible.

wpietri 6y ago
> ad hominem [...] you're not thinking very clearly Huh. Not totally sure you understand what "ad hominem" means. But moving on from that, I'm not objecting to the notion that we might need different models. The way we do anything today is unlikely to be the best way for all of time. Given that I've spent years trying to improve things, perhaps you can take it as read that I think we can improve things. What I'm objecting to is your fatalism that bad shit is probably going to happen to somebody (a note you include in your closing paragraph) combined with your failure to examine exactly who's going to bear the brunt of it. Something you conspicuously didn't do in your reply here, instead suggesting it's some sort of shocking rudeness to point out that as a rich person, it's unlikely to be you.