3 ms·
> The point isn't that you have to provide a comprehensive proof of safety, which is arguably a philosophical impossibility, Then don't call it 'unsafe until p
by spywaregorilla 4y ago
> The point isn't that you have to provide a comprehensive proof of safety, which is arguably a philosophical impossibility,
Then don't call it 'unsafe until proven otherwise'. Safety standards are a great idea. They're not this and calling it this is just a recipe for failure when new information makes it look like the original research was insufficient and that its a policy failure.
- t_mann 4y agoIt's about the mindset, I called it similar to how we talk about the burden of proof in criminal law. The burden should be with producers to defend their products' safety, and in doubt we should err on the side of caution.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoIn law you assume something is innocent until proven guilty. You are suggesting guilty until proven innocent. That's the opposite of how criminal law works (in reasonable places).