4 ms·

Running an abuse prevention system is adversarial. If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-

Running an abuse prevention system is adversarial. If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Running a crime prevention system is adversarial. If your law isn't perfect (which is ofcourae impossible), then having a transparent law enforcement system is the same as nit having a law enforcement system.
- lmm 4y ago
  This but unironically. Transparent law enforcement has never succeeded anywhere. (The US makes the laws notionally "transparent" but written so broadly that they apply to everyone, and the opaque part is under prosecutorial discretion, but in practice it's very much the same mechanism as what the likes of e.g. China do)
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I an confused - if current system is not transparent, where was a transparent system tried?
shkkmo 4y ago
> If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system. This complete hyperbole. While transparency can make some rules easier to dodge, it doesn't necessarily make those rules completely ineffective. There are also different types of rules that are more or less sensitive to transparency. It is thus definitely possible to design abuse prevention systems that, while not perfect, do function in a transparent environment. For example, a level of non transparency is important for criminal investigations, many criminal trials can be completely transparent and expose previously secret details of the investigation. All criminal trials must have a certain level if transparency because fair trials are impossible if you are told the evidence that is used against you.

4 ms·

Running an abuse prevention system is adversarial. If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-

by dodobirdlord 4y ago

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Running a crime prevention system is adversarial. If your law isn't perfect (which is ofcourae impossible), then having a transparent law enforcement system is the same as nit having a law enforcement system.
- lmm 4y ago
  This but unironically. Transparent law enforcement has never succeeded anywhere. (The US makes the laws notionally "transparent" but written so broadly that they apply to everyone, and the opaque part is under prosecutorial discretion, but in practice it's very much the same mechanism as what the likes of e.g. China do)
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I an confused - if current system is not transparent, where was a transparent system tried?
shkkmo 4y ago
> If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system. This complete hyperbole. While transparency can make some rules easier to dodge, it doesn't necessarily make those rules completely ineffective. There are also different types of rules that are more or less sensitive to transparency. It is thus definitely possible to design abuse prevention systems that, while not perfect, do function in a transparent environment. For example, a level of non transparency is important for criminal investigations, many criminal trials can be completely transparent and expose previously secret details of the investigation. All criminal trials must have a certain level if transparency because fair trials are impossible if you are told the evidence that is used against you.