4 ms·

Do you think that beneficial use absolves you of responsibility for harmful use? I ask because you say "We have had over 100 million downloads and this use cas

Do you think that beneficial use absolves you of responsibility for harmful use? I ask because you say "We have had over 100 million downloads and this use case is the most extreme of outliers.", which sounds like you might. I would think the better calculation compares the cost of preventing the harmful use to the harm (where focusing on beneficial use is dismissive of the harm).

xvector 4y ago
If Life360 has indeed saved thousands of lives as he mentions, then of course the moral calculus is in the company's favor. This is the same drama as the whole AirTag stalking debate.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  No! The reasonable moral calculus incorporates what is possible, not just the outcomes of what they are actually doing.
  - wilg 4y ago
    Well, to calibrate our calculus, let's say this is the best that is possible. Is it okay then?
crhulls 4y ago
Yes, I think it does. I’m not sure where the line is drawn but 1/10 is different than 1/100 which is different than 1/10,000,000. If we are extending the sex theme, how often is alcohol used to limber up a young woman to lower her inhibitions? Having gone to college I wouldn’t even consider that an outlier, yet alcohol is prevalent and almost expected at almost all social functions. Should we move back to prohibition? And it is provable we have saved thousands of lives. So yes, I do think the fact that this an extreme outlier vs the good we provide is relevant and does absolve us. And we do take action as evidenced in this very article - these creeps went to jail in no small part because of us.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  So to restate my question, I'm asking if you are expending sufficient resources preventing harm. Like if you spent another $5, would you be likely prevent more than $5 of harm? That's what it means for the beneficial use to absolve you of responsibility for the harmful use, you don't have to think about whether you need to spend that next $5.
  - crhulls 4y ago
    My simplistic answer is, yes, I think we are. Going a bit deeper though, and putting aside the question of prevalence, how would you suggest we solve this problem? -We have actively collaborate with law enforcement (sidebar: we are used to the HN crowd going after us for this due to data privacy issues) -We are a "noisy" app - no one can install Life360 on your phone without you knowing -We have a resources page specifically to help people who feel Life360 is being improperly used -We have a "bubbles" feature that allows you to keep safety features active while hiding your exact location -We have a customer support team that passes all reported instance of misuse to our legal team, which contacts authorities as needed. If there were some easy way to do more, we would certainly consider it. But, getting more philosophical, in some ways you are advocating that all for-profit companies pay for their own externalities. In some respects this makes a lot of sense (e.g. pollution, carbon credits, etc). How do you do this though when an externality is extremely rare or almost impossible to quantify? Should car manufacturers pay into a fund that compensates people who are injured by speeding drivers who emulate racing in car ads? Should hammer and kitchen knife manufacturers do more to prevent murders? Should cigarette manufacturers pay insurance companies for their share of increased actuarial costs? Should social media companies pay for free therapy? Life is grey and I don't claim to be the authority on right or wrong, but I don't feel the critique here zooms out and looks at the bigger picture. Odds and ratios matter.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      If there were some easy way to do more, we would certainly consider it. Why is easy the line? My argument is that you should be actively working to prevent harm, whether it is easy or not. I'm not arguing that you should be expending unlimited resources on it, but I don't think asking other people to think of easy things for you to do is where you should draw the line.

xvector 4y ago

If Life360 has indeed saved thousands of lives as he mentions, then of course the moral calculus is in the company's favor. This is the same drama as the whole AirTag stalking debate.

maxerickson 4y ago
No! The reasonable moral calculus incorporates what is possible, not just the outcomes of what they are actually doing.
- wilg 4y ago
  Well, to calibrate our calculus, let's say this is the best that is possible. Is it okay then?

crhulls 4y ago

Yes, I think it does. I’m not sure where the line is drawn but 1/10 is different than 1/100 which is different than 1/10,000,000. If we are extending the sex theme, how often is alcohol used to limber up a young woman to lower her inhibitions? Having gone to college I wouldn’t even consider that an outlier, yet alcohol is prevalent and almost expected at almost all social functions. Should we move back to prohibition? And it is provable we have saved thousands of lives. So yes, I do think the fact that this an extreme outlier vs the good we provide is relevant and does absolve us. And we do take action as evidenced in this very article - these creeps went to jail in no small part because of us.

maxerickson 4y ago
So to restate my question, I'm asking if you are expending sufficient resources preventing harm. Like if you spent another $5, would you be likely prevent more than $5 of harm? That's what it means for the beneficial use to absolve you of responsibility for the harmful use, you don't have to think about whether you need to spend that next $5.
- crhulls 4y ago
  My simplistic answer is, yes, I think we are. Going a bit deeper though, and putting aside the question of prevalence, how would you suggest we solve this problem? -We have actively collaborate with law enforcement (sidebar: we are used to the HN crowd going after us for this due to data privacy issues) -We are a "noisy" app - no one can install Life360 on your phone without you knowing -We have a resources page specifically to help people who feel Life360 is being improperly used -We have a "bubbles" feature that allows you to keep safety features active while hiding your exact location -We have a customer support team that passes all reported instance of misuse to our legal team, which contacts authorities as needed. If there were some easy way to do more, we would certainly consider it. But, getting more philosophical, in some ways you are advocating that all for-profit companies pay for their own externalities. In some respects this makes a lot of sense (e.g. pollution, carbon credits, etc). How do you do this though when an externality is extremely rare or almost impossible to quantify? Should car manufacturers pay into a fund that compensates people who are injured by speeding drivers who emulate racing in car ads? Should hammer and kitchen knife manufacturers do more to prevent murders? Should cigarette manufacturers pay insurance companies for their share of increased actuarial costs? Should social media companies pay for free therapy? Life is grey and I don't claim to be the authority on right or wrong, but I don't feel the critique here zooms out and looks at the bigger picture. Odds and ratios matter.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    If there were some easy way to do more, we would certainly consider it. Why is easy the line? My argument is that you should be actively working to prevent harm, whether it is easy or not. I'm not arguing that you should be expending unlimited resources on it, but I don't think asking other people to think of easy things for you to do is where you should draw the line.