4 ms·

I don't believe that anyone here, who is engaging in a casual debate attempted to assert authority over the matter, it should be assumed that in any discussion

I don't believe that anyone here, who is engaging in a casual debate attempted to assert authority over the matter, it should be assumed that in any discussion on the internet, that we aren't attempting to handle a legal matter, and that we are all just expressing our opinions. You are making the assertion that "A device put a child's life at risk" this isn't established. Were and How is the device responsible for producing results to queries that the results don't require review before following the result. To me, its seems silly to assume, that voice assistance results to queries will always be safe, for all people asking. If Alexa is asked for a challenge and it provide the result to swim laps, that seems reasonable, but if the the person in question can't swim, and blindly attempts to do the challenge would the device be responsible for putting them at risk? The idea that the device is responsible here seems silly to me, what would put a child at risk is letting them engage with the internet, if they haven't been taught to filter the results, and disregard things that would cause them or others harm.

floatingatoll 5y ago
There are lots of other threads tackling the question of whether the device is responsible, so I don’t need to spend any time on that question, and I’m not. I acknowledge that that question is interesting to others and I bear no enmity to it, but it’s simply not relevant to my particular interests at this time. I am making an assertion, as supported by the tweet, that a parent believes that their child’s life was put at risk by a device. The CPSC asks all parents who feel that to report their concern to the CPSC. One person’s belief is sufficient cause to trigger a report, same as it is with NTSB reporting. That’s the start and the end of my interest in this matter for this post. The CPSC is responsible for evaluating the judgment calls you’re making, once that report is received: whether the device is responsible, whether the child can be reasonably expected to protect itself in this scenario, whether the device actually creates a material risk to children beyond just one parent’s feeling that it did. This is the distinction between reporting (parents must always) and response (CPSC may not always) that I’m trying to make clear. Everyone automatically debates about whether a CPSC response would be appropriate, but I’m highlighting that reporting to the CPSC is always appropriate when you feel that a device put a child at risk, regardless of what anyone else feels about whether the device is actually responsible or not. We are in the vast majority not equipped with the training, processes, and domain-specific knowledge about children’s minds, to decide that a report should not be submitted. We cannot be trained in this in any reasonable amount of time — and a parent’s free time for optional training is less than zero, in any case. Yes, it may be found that the device ultimately isn’t actually responsible at all; but, all the same, that report should be made.

floatingatoll 5y ago

There are lots of other threads tackling the question of whether the device is responsible, so I don’t need to spend any time on that question, and I’m not. I acknowledge that that question is interesting to others and I bear no enmity to it, but it’s simply not relevant to my particular interests at this time. I am making an assertion, as supported by the tweet, that a parent believes that their child’s life was put at risk by a device. The CPSC asks all parents who feel that to report their concern to the CPSC. One person’s belief is sufficient cause to trigger a report, same as it is with NTSB reporting. That’s the start and the end of my interest in this matter for this post. The CPSC is responsible for evaluating the judgment calls you’re making, once that report is received: whether the device is responsible, whether the child can be reasonably expected to protect itself in this scenario, whether the device actually creates a material risk to children beyond just one parent’s feeling that it did. This is the distinction between reporting (parents must always) and response (CPSC may not always) that I’m trying to make clear. Everyone automatically debates about whether a CPSC response would be appropriate, but I’m highlighting that reporting to the CPSC is always appropriate when you feel that a device put a child at risk, regardless of what anyone else feels about whether the device is actually responsible or not. We are in the vast majority not equipped with the training, processes, and domain-specific knowledge about children’s minds, to decide that a report should not be submitted. We cannot be trained in this in any reasonable amount of time — and a parent’s free time for optional training is less than zero, in any case. Yes, it may be found that the device ultimately isn’t actually responsible at all; but, all the same, that report should be made.