3 ms·

I can make a very specific case for it. Out of 1.5+ billion users, millions of which are barely tech-literate and vulnerable, with gmail a constant target for m

by Bakary 4y ago

I can make a very specific case for it. Out of 1.5+ billion users, millions of which are barely tech-literate and vulnerable, with gmail a constant target for malicious entities. That means intuitively at least hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people getting cleaned out of their life savings. Changing things for billions in exchange for a marginal benefit to thousands is bizarre. It's not a 'gish gallop' but a framework for looking at the issue. I'm not saying that empathy is sometimes bad, I'm saying that it can't be the starting point for our reasoning. It can be the impetus that makes us act, but the actual solution should come first. Sure, maybe none of the things I'm proposing will be implemented. Maybe they're all godawful ideas, but I can't fix the problem in the five minutes it took to write the post or even five decades of intense research on my own. But it's clear that keeping to that pseudo-empathy performative martyrdom mindset is an active roadblock against the more ambitious solutions. And it leads to truly awful ideas such as getting rid of encryption, rights, and so on.

rini17 4y ago
So you don't want Google to do anything or what is the purpose of all this verbiage? Which moreover, unjustly dismisses whole issue as "marginal benefit to thousands". Being able to keep/recover email address is so much more than a marginal benefit, and there are many more than thousands of homeless in the US alone.
- Bakary 4y ago
  Maybe Google can do something. Just it probably shouldn't be something that alters security measures for billions. I'm not dismissing the whole issue, just that it was presented in a way that's not actually conducive to helping the homeless. If you remove forced 2FA, you would be dismissing the hundreds of thousands (at minimum) of tech illiterate people out of the 1.5 billion users who would get cleaned out in the coming weeks. Why do their lives not factor into your calculus? Are they not vulnerable too? All of this for a measure that could be resolved in so many other ways. This is the problem I'm trying to illustrate. This sort of moral appeal helps no one, and in fact endangers other populations. If the goal truly were to help people, no one would EVER suggest an alteration that would expose billions for the benefit of thousands.
  - rini17 4y ago
    You really expect people caring for homeless to come with some ready made technically feasible solution? Of course they will do moral appeals and suggest potentially dangerous solutions first. That happens all the time! Getting a response "that aint gonna work get away" isn't appropriate here. Dialogue is, and for that we must listen a bit.

by Bakary 4y ago

rini17 4y ago

So you don't want Google to do anything or what is the purpose of all this verbiage? Which moreover, unjustly dismisses whole issue as "marginal benefit to thousands". Being able to keep/recover email address is so much more than a marginal benefit, and there are many more than thousands of homeless in the US alone.

Bakary 4y ago
Maybe Google can do something. Just it probably shouldn't be something that alters security measures for billions. I'm not dismissing the whole issue, just that it was presented in a way that's not actually conducive to helping the homeless. If you remove forced 2FA, you would be dismissing the hundreds of thousands (at minimum) of tech illiterate people out of the 1.5 billion users who would get cleaned out in the coming weeks. Why do their lives not factor into your calculus? Are they not vulnerable too? All of this for a measure that could be resolved in so many other ways. This is the problem I'm trying to illustrate. This sort of moral appeal helps no one, and in fact endangers other populations. If the goal truly were to help people, no one would EVER suggest an alteration that would expose billions for the benefit of thousands.
- rini17 4y ago
  You really expect people caring for homeless to come with some ready made technically feasible solution? Of course they will do moral appeals and suggest potentially dangerous solutions first. That happens all the time! Getting a response "that aint gonna work get away" isn't appropriate here. Dialogue is, and for that we must listen a bit.