3 ms·

Responsibility is not zero sum. The people who pulled the triggers? Responsible. The people who gave those people the orders? Responsible. People who told them

Responsibility is not zero sum. The people who pulled the triggers? Responsible. The people who gave those people the orders? Responsible. People who told them where to find the people they killed? Responsible. Arms dealers who sold them the guns? If they had any inkling that this was a possible outcome, then they share in the responsibility. The people behind the legacy media efforts that whipped people into a frenzy? Responsible. And so on. Facebook is not like a screwdriver, a simple, neutral tool that is occasionally used to harm. Facebook is an incredibly complex tool for connecting humans, a tool with all sorts of biases that shape the nature and velocity of social interaction. People have known for decades that online communication systems enable harm. This was a well-understood fact long before Facebook existed. Facebook is morally responsible for that harm (as are the perps, etc, etc). Something they understand perfectly well because they do a lot to mitigate that harm while crowing about how socially responsible they are being. You might disagree with most ethicists on this, as well as with Facebook itself. But you'll have an uphill struggle. Even the example you pick, vehicles, doesn't work, because car manufacturers have spent decades working to mitigate opportunities for the tools they create to cause harm. Now that cars are getting smarter, that harm reduction will include preventing drivers from running the cars into people.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. This is quite handily illustrated by your comment actually - where does it end? How much of an "inkling" must people have to carry responsibility? It doesn't sound like a question of fact exactly. The only way to objectively agree about responsibility is to use an actor/agent model, where actors are entirely responsible for their actions, and only actions which directly harm others are considered. Otherwise we're discussing which butterflies are responsible for which hurricanes. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I just don't see an alternative framework that can realistically, objectively, draw actionable boundaries around responsibility for action. This by the way is the model that is used in common law. Facebook being a complex tool strengthens my point. Should providers of complex tools be responsible for every possible use of them? Is it not possible to provide a complex tool "as is" without warranty? Wouldn't constraining tool makers in this way be fundamentally harmful? > online communication systems enable harm... Facebook is morally responsible for that harm Everything can be seen to "enable harm". Facebook being morally responsible is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. Facebook's actions to mitigate are a) to evade/delay regulatory action, b) to maintain their public image or c) by a small group of activist employees. Only a) and b) align with their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. That's incorrect. I'd suggest you start with Dekker's "Field Guide to 'Human Error", which looks at airplane safety. Airplanes are only as safe as they are because many different people and groups see themselves as responsible. Your supposedly "objective" model, if followed, would drastically increase deaths.
  - politician 4y ago
    "The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation — highway, marine, pipeline , and railroad." The reason airplanes are safe is because the government is doing its job to regulate the space.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      That might be a reason, but it is not the reason.
      - politician 4y ago
        Prior to the establishment of NTSB in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, aviation accidents were common [1]. Congress determined that it was necessary to establish an investigation and regulation framework immediately at the beginning of the era of commercial aviation and this has been enormously successful. Many times Congress does not act fast enough to prevent harms (meat packing, banking, pharmaceuticals), but when they do get around to doing their job safety improves. Individual companies must be compelled to act subordinate to federal or state regulatory frameworks, and to not act as vigilantes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_before_1925 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
        wpietri 4y ago
politician 4y ago
All communication systems enable harm, and more generally all systems that allow people to interact enable harm. In the US, the true responsibility for regulating harms lies with the duly elected government exercising its regulatory powers on behalf of the people. It does not lay with the unelected unaccountable members of Responsible Innovation Teams and Online Safety Teams. This form of tyranny persists because the majority of our representatives established their power bases before the advent of the Internet. Hopefully, in the next decade or two, we will be able to effectively subjugate and regulate the King Georges of the large social platforms.

thegrimmest 4y ago

Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. This is quite handily illustrated by your comment actually - where does it end? How much of an "inkling" must people have to carry responsibility? It doesn't sound like a question of fact exactly. The only way to objectively agree about responsibility is to use an actor/agent model, where actors are entirely responsible for their actions, and only actions which directly harm others are considered. Otherwise we're discussing which butterflies are responsible for which hurricanes. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I just don't see an alternative framework that can realistically, objectively, draw actionable boundaries around responsibility for action. This by the way is the model that is used in common law. Facebook being a complex tool strengthens my point. Should providers of complex tools be responsible for every possible use of them? Is it not possible to provide a complex tool "as is" without warranty? Wouldn't constraining tool makers in this way be fundamentally harmful? > online communication systems enable harm... Facebook is morally responsible for that harm Everything can be seen to "enable harm". Facebook being morally responsible is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. Facebook's actions to mitigate are a) to evade/delay regulatory action, b) to maintain their public image or c) by a small group of activist employees. Only a) and b) align with their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

wpietri 4y ago
> Responsibility is zero sum, or any conversations about it are meaningless. That's incorrect. I'd suggest you start with Dekker's "Field Guide to 'Human Error", which looks at airplane safety. Airplanes are only as safe as they are because many different people and groups see themselves as responsible. Your supposedly "objective" model, if followed, would drastically increase deaths.
- politician 4y ago
  "The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation — highway, marine, pipeline , and railroad." The reason airplanes are safe is because the government is doing its job to regulate the space.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That might be a reason, but it is not the reason.
    - politician 4y ago
      Prior to the establishment of NTSB in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, aviation accidents were common [1]. Congress determined that it was necessary to establish an investigation and regulation framework immediately at the beginning of the era of commercial aviation and this has been enormously successful. Many times Congress does not act fast enough to prevent harms (meat packing, banking, pharmaceuticals), but when they do get around to doing their job safety improves. Individual companies must be compelled to act subordinate to federal or state regulatory frameworks, and to not act as vigilantes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_before_1925 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
      - wpietri 4y ago

politician 4y ago

All communication systems enable harm, and more generally all systems that allow people to interact enable harm. In the US, the true responsibility for regulating harms lies with the duly elected government exercising its regulatory powers on behalf of the people. It does not lay with the unelected unaccountable members of Responsible Innovation Teams and Online Safety Teams. This form of tyranny persists because the majority of our representatives established their power bases before the advent of the Internet. Hopefully, in the next decade or two, we will be able to effectively subjugate and regulate the King Georges of the large social platforms.