3 ms·

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 m

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
        Oh, so post hoc ergo propter hoc? I'm not saying the NTSB isn't important. But it's far from the only reason that we have fewer crashes. Government regulation can be helpful in improving standards, but they set a minimum bar. Aviation's high levels of current safety are a collaboration between many, many people. Starting with individual pilots, engineers, and maintenance techs, going up through collaborative relationships, through companies and civil society organizations, and up through national and international regulatory agencies. All of these people are taking responsibility for safety.
        politician 4y ago
        From your comments in this thread, I think that you believe that safety is a collective effort and that there is no single individual or entity directly responsible for enforcing a culture of accountability, is that right? If so, how do you explain the catastrophic failures in construction, food safety, and banking prior to the top-down government oversight of those industries?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Every aviation accident post mortem I've read assigns finds a finite list of causes and contributing factors. Each system/person has strong ownership that is responsible for making the recommended changes. These post mortem reports also explicitly do not find civil or criminal liability - that is a zero-sum process.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Liability is indeed strict zero sum. But you're confusing that with moral responsibility, which isn't. They serve two different purposes. The former comes out of a zero-sum, adversarial setting where the goal is to figure out who pays for a past harm. The latter comes from a positive-sum collaborative setting where everybody is trying to improve future outcomes. If I release a new product tomorrow, I'm responsible for what happens. As are the people who use it. But if somebody dies, then liability may be allocated only to one of us or to both in some proportion. Again, read Dekker.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      "Responsibility" is semantically a bit nebulous, but seems to me much more related to "liability" than "continuous improvement". The question "Who is responsible?" reads a lot more like "Who is liable?" than "How did this bad thing happen?". If you release a new product, you may be accountable to your org for how it performs, but (IMO) you're not morally responsible for the actions of others using it. If your new product is a choking hazard you're not guilty of manslaughter. "morally responsible" ~= "guilty"
      - sdoering 4y ago
        > If your new product is a choking hazard you're not guilty of manslaughter. But you are still imho (morally) responsible for the deaths occurring out of the use of your product (this is where we would probably disagree). Even if you were not legally guilty. I like another example that to me clarified the distinction between these concepts better. Imagine one morning, you open your front door and find a baby having been placed there somewhen during the night. The child is still alive. You are not guilty in any way for the baby's fate, but now that you have seen it you are responsible for ensuring that it gets help. You would be guilty if you would allow it to freeze to death or similar.

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
      Oh, so post hoc ergo propter hoc? I'm not saying the NTSB isn't important. But it's far from the only reason that we have fewer crashes. Government regulation can be helpful in improving standards, but they set a minimum bar. Aviation's high levels of current safety are a collaboration between many, many people. Starting with individual pilots, engineers, and maintenance techs, going up through collaborative relationships, through companies and civil society organizations, and up through national and international regulatory agencies. All of these people are taking responsibility for safety.
      - politician 4y ago
        From your comments in this thread, I think that you believe that safety is a collective effort and that there is no single individual or entity directly responsible for enforcing a culture of accountability, is that right? If so, how do you explain the catastrophic failures in construction, food safety, and banking prior to the top-down government oversight of those industries?
thegrimmest 4y ago
Every aviation accident post mortem I've read assigns finds a finite list of causes and contributing factors. Each system/person has strong ownership that is responsible for making the recommended changes. These post mortem reports also explicitly do not find civil or criminal liability - that is a zero-sum process.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Liability is indeed strict zero sum. But you're confusing that with moral responsibility, which isn't. They serve two different purposes. The former comes out of a zero-sum, adversarial setting where the goal is to figure out who pays for a past harm. The latter comes from a positive-sum collaborative setting where everybody is trying to improve future outcomes. If I release a new product tomorrow, I'm responsible for what happens. As are the people who use it. But if somebody dies, then liability may be allocated only to one of us or to both in some proportion. Again, read Dekker.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    "Responsibility" is semantically a bit nebulous, but seems to me much more related to "liability" than "continuous improvement". The question "Who is responsible?" reads a lot more like "Who is liable?" than "How did this bad thing happen?". If you release a new product, you may be accountable to your org for how it performs, but (IMO) you're not morally responsible for the actions of others using it. If your new product is a choking hazard you're not guilty of manslaughter. "morally responsible" ~= "guilty"
    - sdoering 4y ago
      > If your new product is a choking hazard you're not guilty of manslaughter. But you are still imho (morally) responsible for the deaths occurring out of the use of your product (this is where we would probably disagree). Even if you were not legally guilty. I like another example that to me clarified the distinction between these concepts better. Imagine one morning, you open your front door and find a baby having been placed there somewhen during the night. The child is still alive. You are not guilty in any way for the baby's fate, but now that you have seen it you are responsible for ensuring that it gets help. You would be guilty if you would allow it to freeze to death or similar.