3 ms·
I don't buy that philosophy for short-lived things that haven't had a chance to be acted upon. If a system is in place and continues to do a thing after concer
by t-writescode 6y ago
I don't buy that philosophy for short-lived things that haven't had a chance to be acted upon.
If a system is in place and continues to do a thing after concerns are brought up, then absolutely, that's an argument that can be made; but, for each new class of mistake a system makes, you can't just say that that's what it was designed to do.
It's unfair to the designers, the people in the know, etc. You'll never win people over by telling them the thing they attempted to create, with many years of sweat and tears, was _designed_ to do something nefarious if it wasn't.
If they don't change after evidence to the contrary, then this can be brought up; but before then, it's inappropriate.
- ryandrake 6y agoI’d agree if this was the first time bad behavior was uncovered. And it’s not just FB, Silicon Valley seems to have a big problem with big systems that, like Frankenstein, escaped the intent of their creators and fell into this algorithmic evil maximization trap.
- t-writescode 6y agoThis is probably the first time it's being reported in a meaningful way that their system enables targeting children for illegal products (presuming vaping is illegal in Australia or the United States for those under 18, which is a separate question, since the only one that passed looked like a vaping product if I understand what I saw in the article)