4 ms·
How is this „originators‘ view“ relevant? It isn‘t. Since nobody seem to like my example of the diabetic, here‘s another one: If someone publishes an article in
by quonn 3y ago
How is this „originators‘ view“ relevant? It isn‘t. Since nobody seem to like my example of the diabetic, here‘s another one: If someone publishes an article in 30 years that describes how search engine or social media companies had internal research that shows that their products have privacy issues and are addictive to the young, would that be a scandal? Probably, but it shouldn‘t be. Because these companies have no special secret access to these facts and everyone knows them. But it nevertheless takes 10 or 15 years to get people to switch from Chrome to Firefox or to get them off social media and the products are like that because nobody wants to pay for them.
- Volundr 3y agoYour saying <X> knew <Y> was harmful for decades, and <X> continued to do <Y> while gaslighting everyone by claiming <Y> is fine, even as evidence continues to mount just how bad <Y> is because someone else could have also studied <Y> is a really weird hill to die on. Yes, if someone knows something is bad, and lies about it for decades, while attempting to discredit everyone studying that thing and finding out it's bad, it's going to be a scandal when it finally comes out they've been lying to everyone for decades and knew it. As it should be. "Hey guys, technically you could have found the same information I did and known I was lying" doesn't and shouldn't excuse it.