3 ms·

That's a lovely and idealistic view of humans. Unfortunately bad actors have realized that what we actually are is just meat computers with unpatchable securit

That's a lovely and idealistic view of humans. Unfortunately bad actors have realized that what we actually are is just meat computers with unpatchable security vulnerabilities, so demanding that people just stop having problems and fit your nebulous definition of competence with unlimited and unwavering performance, has predictably not panned out. What is the more moral solution then? Recognizing and placing systematic limits on exploitation behaviors, or is it continuing to demand super-vigilance from the victims?

sailfast 3y ago
Just wanted to say that I found this phrasing to be fantastic.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Agreed, this was a really well-put response.
- Modified3019 3y ago
  Just came across a very terse version of this sentiment, which you might like: “You can try having self-control, but there are a thousand engineers on the other side of the screen working against you.” ― Tristan Harris (Found on https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-time-under-21-11-09 https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-..., itself linked from a discussion of use of grayscale mode, which I also recommend for people like me that easily get sucked into a whirlpool of novel information seeking. History has relentlessly proven to me that the less "self control" I need to have, the more self control I actually have.)
wharvle 3y ago
You can have: 1) An “ethical” system in which a bunch of people are losing money and are surprised by this, unaware of it, or intend to stop it, haven’t yet, but absolutely would if it were as easy as thinking “stop that”. But they said yes somewhere along the line, so it’s all “ethical”. 2) A just-as-ethical system that… simply doesn’t do that bad stuff in 1, or at least does way less of it. It’s weird to me that people defend situations akin to 1 when 2 is totally achievable, on the grounds that “well 1 isn’t technically unethical (as I define it)”. Ok? So what? 2 is better and isn’t less ethical. What is going through someone’s head when they defend 1 and dismiss or put down the notion of 2? If you could flip a switch to toggle between the two, would you really leave it on 1? I do not get it. Why not pick the version with better outcomes? [edit] and, separately, I think it’s plainly unethical—to put it mildly—to add terms to a contract or steps to a process that you know with great certainty your counterparty will later regret or dislike, relying on their overlooking it or not having better options, purely for your own benefit at their expense. I don’t think their saying “yes” makes that ethically an ok thing to do—it’s straight-up predatory. But even if it does make it Ok, why prefer that over… not-that?

sailfast 3y ago

Just wanted to say that I found this phrasing to be fantastic.

jjulius 3y ago
Agreed, this was a really well-put response.
Modified3019 3y ago
Just came across a very terse version of this sentiment, which you might like: “You can try having self-control, but there are a thousand engineers on the other side of the screen working against you.” ― Tristan Harris (Found on https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-time-under-21-11-09 https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-..., itself linked from a discussion of use of grayscale mode, which I also recommend for people like me that easily get sucked into a whirlpool of novel information seeking. History has relentlessly proven to me that the less "self control" I need to have, the more self control I actually have.)

wharvle 3y ago

You can have: 1) An “ethical” system in which a bunch of people are losing money and are surprised by this, unaware of it, or intend to stop it, haven’t yet, but absolutely would if it were as easy as thinking “stop that”. But they said yes somewhere along the line, so it’s all “ethical”. 2) A just-as-ethical system that… simply doesn’t do that bad stuff in 1, or at least does way less of it. It’s weird to me that people defend situations akin to 1 when 2 is totally achievable, on the grounds that “well 1 isn’t technically unethical (as I define it)”. Ok? So what? 2 is better and isn’t less ethical. What is going through someone’s head when they defend 1 and dismiss or put down the notion of 2? If you could flip a switch to toggle between the two, would you really leave it on 1? I do not get it. Why not pick the version with better outcomes? [edit] and, separately, I think it’s plainly unethical—to put it mildly—to add terms to a contract or steps to a process that you know with great certainty your counterparty will later regret or dislike, relying on their overlooking it or not having better options, purely for your own benefit at their expense. I don’t think their saying “yes” makes that ethically an ok thing to do—it’s straight-up predatory. But even if it does make it Ok, why prefer that over… not-that?