3 ms·

In this case the context we are talking about includes not just one user, but rather the general target demographic as a whole. But let's be honest, semantics

by jchw 3y ago

In this case the context we are talking about includes not just one user, but rather the general target demographic as a whole. But let's be honest, semantics debates are a waste of time. The ultimate source of truth for "appropriateness", a wishy-washy concept to begin with, is the public court of opinion, for which the opinion is pretty obvious based on: 1. This news story existing 2. The developers promptly pulling the app even just out of caution 3. The top responses either agreeing or not disagreeing with the inappropriateness And yes, just to preempt it, of course given enough people and time you'll find someone that will take issue with anything, but this isn't a "gray area" case, this is a dark shade of black area case. Was this an appropriate behavior for the application? No. It's just that simple.

chrisjj 3y ago
> the public court of opinion, for which the opinion is pretty obvious based on: > > 1. This news story existing I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. > 2. The developers promptly pulling the app even just out of caution Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline".
- jchw 3y ago
  > I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. It's pretty hard for me to conceptualize that you are still trying to argue "actually, maybe it's appropriate for the silly lottery marketing website to output unsolicited porn without warning because one user might enjoy that" by literally nitpicking semantics in the idea that the average person is not going to find this appropriate. A journalist and a source can indeed make for some bunk stories. It's still a point for this being a legitimate concern. Another obvious point towards that is the fact that it made it to the HN frontpage and now we're discussing it. > Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline". March 30th: the incident in question April 2nd: gone Two business days is quite prompt to decide to entirely shut something down over a single incident that isn't even confirmed to have happened actually, yeah.

by jchw 3y ago

chrisjj 3y ago

> the public court of opinion, for which the opinion is pretty obvious based on: > > 1. This news story existing I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. > 2. The developers promptly pulling the app even just out of caution Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline".

jchw 3y ago
> I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. It's pretty hard for me to conceptualize that you are still trying to argue "actually, maybe it's appropriate for the silly lottery marketing website to output unsolicited porn without warning because one user might enjoy that" by literally nitpicking semantics in the idea that the average person is not going to find this appropriate. A journalist and a source can indeed make for some bunk stories. It's still a point for this being a legitimate concern. Another obvious point towards that is the fact that it made it to the HN frontpage and now we're discussing it. > Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline". March 30th: the incident in question April 2nd: gone Two business days is quite prompt to decide to entirely shut something down over a single incident that isn't even confirmed to have happened actually, yeah.