3 ms·
Society benefits from allowing new inventions then banning those that turn out to be harmful, once the harm is clear. The result is that you keep the good inve
by scarab92 2y ago
Society benefits from allowing new inventions then banning those that turn out to be harmful, once the harm is clear.
The result is that you keep the good inventions and discard the harmful ones.
What people are proposing here is to preemptively ban new inventions even when there’s no evidence of harm. It’s not a good idea because while it will stop the bad inventions, it will also stop the good ones.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 2y agoThere is a concept of 'risk'. Making any choice, yea or nay, comes with risks, and they should be evaluated and acted up as per the risk tolerance of people at the time. You are saying that we should disregard any rational evaluation of potential risks on one side and only choose one option all the time. Is that a logical position to hold?
- scarab92 2y agoNo, I’m saying we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to banning things without a clear reason. This thread is full of people suggesting Facebook be banned from behaving this way based on little more than gut-feel. They aren’t even capable of giving a hypothesis for harm this could be harmful.
- lancesells 2y agoAnd to think if Facebook just let people opt-in we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Harmful or not, did Facebook, who is bringing in billions in profit every three months, really have to do it this way?