3 ms·
>>>> Even if they're only relaying the news without checking. Dunno if you recognize that, but it's my premise from earlier. In it I was talking about a scenar
by wnight 15y ago
>>>> Even if they're only relaying the news without checking.
Dunno if you recognize that, but it's my premise from earlier. In it I was talking about a scenario like the one in Mexico is thought to be - a re-tweeter, not a rumor creator.
- eneveu 15y agoI think we are actually in agreement on this. It's wrong to punish people who genuinely thought there was a fire, or who relayed a reasonably plausible alarm without checking. My initial comment wasn't an attempt to totally rebute yours, and I should have made that clear. I was focusing on: >>>The downside? One unnecessary evacuation that probably needed practice anyways. You seemed to consider the unnecessary evacuation as a minor perturbation. I pointed out that such an evacuation is not 100% risk-free. Of course, nothing is 100% risk-free, and we need to take this into account when doing risk analysis. After our discussion, I guess the risk of accidents during an unnecessary evacuation might actually be lower than the risk of having people not raising the alarm when needed (due to a fear of being punished if it turns out they were wrong). But this risk still needs to be weighed when considering this problem.