7 ms·
It’s an ineffective tool if your goal is change.
by redcobra762 3y ago
It’s an ineffective tool if your goal is change.
- boxed 3y agoLike how Apple says about the App Store rejections: > Running to the press never helps. Except of course, in reality we know that it ABSOLUTELY DOES. In fact, it has been often times the ONLY thing that has helped.
- BeetleB 3y agoWith humans. With companies it's pretty effective - especially if the post hits front page. Ask Troy Hunt: https://www.troyhunt.com/the-effectiveness-of-publicly-shaming-bad-security/ https://www.troyhunt.com/the-effectiveness-of-publicly-shami...
- zelon88 3y agoSecurity is at a point where shame is required. You deserve to feel shame if you have an unjustifiable security posture like plain text passwords. The time for politely asking directors to do their job has passed. This is even the governments take at this point. Do it right or stop doing it at all.
- sleepybrett 3y agoIs it, often times hacks like this drive people out of business.
- Dah00n 3y agoIt is? I'd say shaming is the best tool there is.
- redcobra762 3y agoPositive interactions trump negative interactions when your goal is to encourage lasting change.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago"Change" could mean a careless, incompetent or reckless company going out of business, a net positive for possible future victims of their conduct.
- pests 3y agoHow so?
- pastage 3y agoBecause everyone makes mistakes, if you antagonize someone they are less likely to care about you and feel more obligation to protect their own.
- bruh2 3y agoThis is absolutely true at the scope of personal relationships. Not at all when it comes to companies, which have a different set of incentives
- godelski 3y agoI think this is more because we also are quick to shame what are more clear unintentional mistakes or not give positive rewards to good actors. I'm also not unconvinced there are people that want to up-play any controversy (not as any specifically collective and directed force, but an emergent behavior may look that way. More "never let a tragedy go to waste" thing). But that's different than shaming. That's over-saturating the system with false positives. To combat this I'd encourage you to not respond, in __any__ way to bullshit fake controversy and to also give positive reinforcement for when companies do something good. I'll give an example, you've probably seen companies like Meta occasionally do something good. For example, they released the source of LLaMA. But people tend to use those opportunities to not congratulate Meta for doing the good thing but rather complain about other bad things they do. Then yes, it fits your model, because you've reached bad steady state and you can no longer turn good because nothing you do that is good will get any signal to continue in that direction. Us humans are weird and routinely shoot ourselves in the foot only to ask who fired the bullet, smoking gun in hand.
- janalsncm 3y agoUsing plain text passwords goes well beyond a simple “mistake” in my book. It is negligent.
- Eisenstein 3y agoShame is absolutely a valuable tool for change. Without it society would not function since many of our 'rules' are self-enforced.
- gosub100 3y agoIt ends up leading to "word-inflation" where you have to keep shouting louder, stretching the truth to be acknowledged. The word "racist" changing meaning over the last 30-40 years is a great example.