14 ms·

If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy

by wahern 5y ago

If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information, including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted. The greater the details, the greater the burden. People naturally make assumptions about credibility according to the depth and breadth of the information provided. If you're not prepared to make the commitment, then it's quite prudent not to publish so many details. If you don't publish it, then people can't mistake it for up-to-date, accurate, and/or comprehensive information, and they'll be more likely seek it out somewhere else or otherwise hedge their reliance. If you do publish and it's inaccurate, then you're misleading people and possibly redirecting them away from other, more reliable sources. It's difficult to say without more details what the fundamental concerns in your case were. But note that the real, nuanced reasons for certain decisions aren't or can't always be adequately explained to employees. A lawyer or emergency services expert might give the sophisticated analysis, but by the time the directive makes it down to people implementing it the rationale is "because people are dumb". But in truth it's really more that people are trusting.

moolcool 5y ago
> including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted SO much of the current covid conspiracy stuff relies on redacted studies. The thing is, the conspiracy theorists either think that they've been redacted because of "the man", or don't know how redaction works full stop.
- mwfunk 5y ago
  I think another big part of it is, the conspiracy theorists only need one paper that agrees with them to instantly say the gazillions of papers that disagree with them are wrong. So even one redacted paper is more important to them than all other scholarship.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    And, given yesterdays thread, the opposite.
- evancox100 5y ago
  Ya, studies with classified information blacked out are the worst
  - anders_p 5y ago
    Hah. Yes. The redaction/retraction confusion here is rather funny. "Redacted" scientific research on covid, would make a conspiracy theorist out of me too :)
maxerickson 5y ago
The idea that people should look at a map of hospitals in an emergency is pretty much what the article is about. It's a worry that people will do something stupid if information is available. If you don't know dead cold where the trauma center is, you should be calling 911 (or equivalent), not trying to decide where to drive. If you are in the middle of nowhere, you don't need to drive to the closest trauma center to improve the situation, drive to the nearest larger town/city. There will be a way of landing a helicopter there. And so on.
- wahern 5y ago
  Just to play devils advocate, without knowing the exact details of the OP's product: you provide an electronic map, much like a subway map, of trauma centers with minimum necessary details, like only through streets and clearly labeled names which makes it effortless to plan, at a glance, the shortest route. Great. If they take what looks like the shortest route and hit road construction or traffic, they won't hesitate to analyze the situation on the spot and reroute if they believe it the better bet. But now you add some helpful little details--a colored route from A to B with a label, "5 minutes drive time". Now they reach the obstruction. Will they immediately assess the situation as they see it, or will they believe that "5 minutes" already accounts for the time necessary to pass the obstruction, thus hesitating under the false belief that the electronic map is using hidden information? EDIT: Note that this situation describes the error in the CDC's mask decision as discussed in the article. What the CDC should have said at the time was that it wasn't going to mandate masks because it lacked confidence in its information regarding mask advocacy and efficacy. Instead what the CDC did was affirmatively tell people not to wear masks. If gave people too much detail and implied that it knew more than it really did. We can argue over whether the CDC should have known that masks were beneficial, but I think most can agree that they should have been more careful about giving false confidence either way. People aren't stupid, but they are easily misled, and once misled they'll continue rationalizing the direction they're headed. That describes not only how people responded to the CDC guidance but to the CDC itself--its false confidence in the poor 1960s-era aerosol experiments that claimed more than it actually proved. Misleading information is poisonous. First rule: "do no harm". That's paramount over the responsibility to affirmatively help people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 5y ago
> If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information That doesn't seem to work that way in most situations. For instance there is a mandatory floor plan in all public buildings in case of emergency, and now with covid some do flow control by physically blocking entries/exits. These maps aren't updated to cross out blocked paths, and nobody seems to getting sued to outer space. Gov sites are regularily broken, out of date, ridden with errors. I once needed to go to an clinic and used the GPS coordinates to go there, only to realize midway they were the town center coordinates and not the accurate building's coordinate. They still operate, I requested an update and it's not fixed.
- toast0 5y ago
  > These maps aren't updated to cross out blocked paths, and nobody seems to getting sued to outer space. You can't sue someone preemptively for bad information. You've also got to have a bad situation made significantly worse by bad information.
  - throwawaythekey 5y ago
    Surely you can though! Isn't that what endangerment exists for (or is that bar too high?). I imagine if actual harm, or near harm, was required then it would be very difficult to enforce a lot standards.
    - toast0 5y ago
      A lot of enforcement comes from government authority and fines and what not, not lawsuits and not private lawsuits. I mean, you're welcome to file a suit, but if you don't have a contract, and you don't have actual harm, and you don't have statuatory harm, expect your suit to be dismissed.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Who are "some"? Blocking fire exits is totally illegal. You should probably report them. Government being complete shit at software, and people don't trust the government. Correlation?
birksherty 5y ago
Disagree. Just make it available with a clearly visible note saying it might not be updated, so verify once before using it for emergencies. People insist on making simple things too complicated.
- anders_p 5y ago
  > Disagree. Just make it available with a clearly visible note saying it might not be updated, so verify once before using it for emergencies. > People insist on making simple things too complicated. Didn't you just make it more complicated here? By adding a disclaimer? And at the same time presenting possibly outdated information? And requiring people to verify the information with another source? While deep down knowing very well, that a lot, if not most, will not double check the information, before they end in an emergency? And also, verifying for accuracy once does nothing, if the information becomes outdated, between verifying and the time of the emergency. The simplest solution here, was what they actually did. They removed the information that was the source of the confusion.
  - birksherty 5y ago
    How disclaimer is confusion? People will have to check anyway without that information available. It is not outdated, just may be, you don't know. Better to have the information available than not. It's simpler than not having it.

by wahern 5y ago

moolcool 5y ago

> including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted SO much of the current covid conspiracy stuff relies on redacted studies. The thing is, the conspiracy theorists either think that they've been redacted because of "the man", or don't know how redaction works full stop.

mwfunk 5y ago
I think another big part of it is, the conspiracy theorists only need one paper that agrees with them to instantly say the gazillions of papers that disagree with them are wrong. So even one redacted paper is more important to them than all other scholarship.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  And, given yesterdays thread, the opposite.
evancox100 5y ago
Ya, studies with classified information blacked out are the worst
- anders_p 5y ago
  Hah. Yes. The redaction/retraction confusion here is rather funny. "Redacted" scientific research on covid, would make a conspiracy theorist out of me too :)

maxerickson 5y ago

The idea that people should look at a map of hospitals in an emergency is pretty much what the article is about. It's a worry that people will do something stupid if information is available. If you don't know dead cold where the trauma center is, you should be calling 911 (or equivalent), not trying to decide where to drive. If you are in the middle of nowhere, you don't need to drive to the closest trauma center to improve the situation, drive to the nearest larger town/city. There will be a way of landing a helicopter there. And so on.

wahern 5y ago
Just to play devils advocate, without knowing the exact details of the OP's product: you provide an electronic map, much like a subway map, of trauma centers with minimum necessary details, like only through streets and clearly labeled names which makes it effortless to plan, at a glance, the shortest route. Great. If they take what looks like the shortest route and hit road construction or traffic, they won't hesitate to analyze the situation on the spot and reroute if they believe it the better bet. But now you add some helpful little details--a colored route from A to B with a label, "5 minutes drive time". Now they reach the obstruction. Will they immediately assess the situation as they see it, or will they believe that "5 minutes" already accounts for the time necessary to pass the obstruction, thus hesitating under the false belief that the electronic map is using hidden information? EDIT: Note that this situation describes the error in the CDC's mask decision as discussed in the article. What the CDC should have said at the time was that it wasn't going to mandate masks because it lacked confidence in its information regarding mask advocacy and efficacy. Instead what the CDC did was affirmatively tell people not to wear masks. If gave people too much detail and implied that it knew more than it really did. We can argue over whether the CDC should have known that masks were beneficial, but I think most can agree that they should have been more careful about giving false confidence either way. People aren't stupid, but they are easily misled, and once misled they'll continue rationalizing the direction they're headed. That describes not only how people responded to the CDC guidance but to the CDC itself--its false confidence in the poor 1960s-era aerosol experiments that claimed more than it actually proved. Misleading information is poisonous. First rule: "do no harm". That's paramount over the responsibility to affirmatively help people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

makeitdouble 5y ago

> If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information That doesn't seem to work that way in most situations. For instance there is a mandatory floor plan in all public buildings in case of emergency, and now with covid some do flow control by physically blocking entries/exits. These maps aren't updated to cross out blocked paths, and nobody seems to getting sued to outer space. Gov sites are regularily broken, out of date, ridden with errors. I once needed to go to an clinic and used the GPS coordinates to go there, only to realize midway they were the town center coordinates and not the accurate building's coordinate. They still operate, I requested an update and it's not fixed.

toast0 5y ago
> These maps aren't updated to cross out blocked paths, and nobody seems to getting sued to outer space. You can't sue someone preemptively for bad information. You've also got to have a bad situation made significantly worse by bad information.
- throwawaythekey 5y ago
  Surely you can though! Isn't that what endangerment exists for (or is that bar too high?). I imagine if actual harm, or near harm, was required then it would be very difficult to enforce a lot standards.
  - toast0 5y ago
    A lot of enforcement comes from government authority and fines and what not, not lawsuits and not private lawsuits. I mean, you're welcome to file a suit, but if you don't have a contract, and you don't have actual harm, and you don't have statuatory harm, expect your suit to be dismissed.
darkerside 5y ago
Who are "some"? Blocking fire exits is totally illegal. You should probably report them. Government being complete shit at software, and people don't trust the government. Correlation?

birksherty 5y ago

Disagree. Just make it available with a clearly visible note saying it might not be updated, so verify once before using it for emergencies. People insist on making simple things too complicated.

anders_p 5y ago
> Disagree. Just make it available with a clearly visible note saying it might not be updated, so verify once before using it for emergencies. > People insist on making simple things too complicated. Didn't you just make it more complicated here? By adding a disclaimer? And at the same time presenting possibly outdated information? And requiring people to verify the information with another source? While deep down knowing very well, that a lot, if not most, will not double check the information, before they end in an emergency? And also, verifying for accuracy once does nothing, if the information becomes outdated, between verifying and the time of the emergency. The simplest solution here, was what they actually did. They removed the information that was the source of the confusion.
- birksherty 5y ago
  How disclaimer is confusion? People will have to check anyway without that information available. It is not outdated, just may be, you don't know. Better to have the information available than not. It's simpler than not having it.