3 ms·
This article misses the point. People don't want the tech companies to provide the consequences for breaking the law, they want tech companies to do a better j
by slg 2y ago
This article misses the point. People don't want the tech companies to provide the consequences for breaking the law, they want tech companies to do a better job preventing the law from being broken in the first place. And if society deems these tech companies are intentionally allowing people to break the law as a means to spur growth overall, many people feel there should be consequences for the tech companies.
We have been having the same argument about this for basically the entire history of the internet. It is really no different whether the specific case is about someone using AI to get their boss fired or uploading a copyrighted movie to YouTube. The tech companies should have at least a little responsibility in preventing the abuse of their system. The question is just where to draw that line.
- ctoth 2y ago> I understand that there’s anger from some corners that this happened in the first place, but this is the nature of society. Somethings break the law, and we treat them accordingly. > Wishing to live in a world in which no one could ever break the law, or in which companies were somehow magically responsible for guaranteeing no one would ever misuse their products is not a good outcome. It would lead to a horrific mess of mostly useless tools, ruined by the small group of people who might misuse them. Seems that the article isn't the one missing the point.
- slg 2y ago>Wishing to live in a world in which no one could ever break the law, or in which companies were somehow magically responsible for guaranteeing no one would ever misuse their products is not a good outcome. This is classic straw man stuff. No one is pretending we live in a perfect world in which these companies can hit a button and prevent all crime. The question is just what is the bare minimum of work they should do to prevent abuse. Everyone agrees with this at some level. We don't want Youtube to be filled with CSAM and we all agree that Google has some responsibility in preventing that. Once again, the question is just where the line exists.
- Gormo 2y ago> People don't want the tech companies to provide the consequences for breaking the law, they want tech companies to do a better job preventing the law from being broken in the first place. And yet no one seems to hold anyone other then "tech companies" to the same standard. No one expects the phone company to preemptively identify and block stalkers, or monitor the content of people's phone calls to filter out threatening or offensive language. No one expects the postal service to do the same for written correspondence. No one expects the people managing parking lots to prevent people from driving without insurance or licenses, or newspapers to vet the intentions of whomever is still posting classified ads in print media. The internet is just a digital version of the same sorts of communication tools and public gathering spaces we've always had. Why would we expect people who are providing tools to communicate with each other to preemptively police conduct of their users, when we don't expect the same (and would likely find it intrusive) from the offline venues that they're analogous to?
- slg 2y agoIt is easy to cherry-pick examples that go in either direction. For example, try to photocopy a dollar bill and see what happens. As a society we have drawn some lines regarding the minimum expectations for preventing abuse. There are obviously going to be things that exist on both sides of that line.
- mrkeen 2y agoWhat happens?
- marcosdumay 2y ago> No one expects the phone company to preemptively identify and block stalkers People do really expect that one.
- Gormo 2y agoTelemarketers and spam callers, perhaps, but not individuals making annoying phone calls to other individuals.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]