3 ms·

> I can't count how many times I heard people say "this decision should be mine to make" only to follow it up after some time with "somebody should have warned

> I can't count how many times I heard people say "this decision should be mine to make" only to follow it up after some time with "somebody should have warned me not to do it". The correct response, if (as in this case) they were warned, is to say “someone did warn you, pay more attention next time”, then walk away[1]. Just like if a beginner ignores the black piste markets and the “for good skiers only” sign at the top of a slope then complains that they fell over. It is problematic to create in users an expectation that if they blindly mash at their globally-networked, bank-account-connected devices without paying a modicum of attention to anything that appears on the screen when they do so, that everything will be fine, and if it’s not it’s someone else’s fault. [1] optional, depends how much you like them

oneplane 3y ago
> The correct response, if (as in this case) they were warned, is to say “someone did warn you, pay more attention next time”, then walk away[1]. In reality, this does far more harm than good. In almost all cases this goes wrong because of the 'little learning is a dangerous thing' problem. People tend to be in two camps: - Don't care, don't want to fiddle with the thing, the manufacturer has to do everything - Knowing just enough to break things, but not enough to fix it (and thus it is the fault of the manufacturer) Other types like the 'I am the owner, I make the rules' crowd are insignificantly small. This means that in the real world (so not in an echochamber) you only get one scaled and realistic scenario: the user creates problems (for themselves, others), but cannot fix them, and everyone/everything not-user then has to care for them to deal with it. In an ideal theoretical world we might say that the end-user has to be responsible, and they have to make infinite mistakes and learn everything so they can become good caretakers of their networked systems. But that is not reality, and is not realistic.
- barnabee 3y ago
  > In reality, this does far more harm than good Harm reduction isn't always the most important goal, especially when it's other people's harm and reducing it also involves restricting what they can do.

oneplane 3y ago

> The correct response, if (as in this case) they were warned, is to say “someone did warn you, pay more attention next time”, then walk away[1]. In reality, this does far more harm than good. In almost all cases this goes wrong because of the 'little learning is a dangerous thing' problem. People tend to be in two camps: - Don't care, don't want to fiddle with the thing, the manufacturer has to do everything - Knowing just enough to break things, but not enough to fix it (and thus it is the fault of the manufacturer) Other types like the 'I am the owner, I make the rules' crowd are insignificantly small. This means that in the real world (so not in an echochamber) you only get one scaled and realistic scenario: the user creates problems (for themselves, others), but cannot fix them, and everyone/everything not-user then has to care for them to deal with it. In an ideal theoretical world we might say that the end-user has to be responsible, and they have to make infinite mistakes and learn everything so they can become good caretakers of their networked systems. But that is not reality, and is not realistic.

barnabee 3y ago
> In reality, this does far more harm than good Harm reduction isn't always the most important goal, especially when it's other people's harm and reducing it also involves restricting what they can do.