2 ms·

Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? Finding someone to blame is neither necessary nor sufficient to fix a system so an accident doesn't happen ag

Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? Finding someone to blame is neither necessary nor sufficient to fix a system so an accident doesn't happen again. It might act as as an incentive to fix a system, but it's less direct than actually working on fixing the system.

OtomotO 20d ago
> Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? I, for one, am not trying to find scapegoats or go on a witchhunt. But managers are paid a lot of money to take responsibility. Yes, that's an old school thought, responsibility. But that's one big reason they get a big, fat paycheck.
chao- 20d ago
A starting note: I don't disagree with you (about systemic issues), but I want to explain what I understand as the perspective you are responding to. A "scapegoat" is someone who is incorrectly blamed for someone else's errors or sins. The perspective you're responding to is this: They built the system, they run the system, they have continuously warned "This system is dangerous!", and yet persisted. That is not being incorrectly blamed, not being a scapegoat, and instead is a collaborator. So I think you mean to ask: "Why do people focus so much on finding someone to blame?" It's not merely semantic, because the answer to that is more straightforward: Consistent accountability is a major factor in deterring bad behavior. It is not the only factor, but it is a major one. That is my Steel Man understanding of the people searching for individual blame.
- skybrian 20d ago
  Sometimes in "normalization of deviance" situations, there isn't anyone specifically to blame. I wouldn't make an assumption that you can find anyone particularly blameworthy without doing an investigation first.
  - pona-a 20d ago
    The rate at which these "labs" are creating these incidents is simply staggering. Imagine we made nuclear weapons a private industry, had CEOs bragging how they have enough warheads to blow the Earth to smithereens, and then they "accidentally" nuked three cities over a short period of time each, saying they lost control, or rather couldn't contain their semi-autonomous weapon. All somehow managing to turn the PR around from their abject incompetence and towards SciFi visions of mankind hunted by self-replicating bombs.
- anthonyrstevens 19d ago
  This is a good comment and I'd like to add that I sometimes am astonished how many comments on HN are on the topic of liability or blame for this or that. I see liability as a 2nd or even 3rd order phenomenon of most of the subjects under discussion, but for whatever reason, liability always seems to come up. Maybe because it's sort of easy to reason about? Thirst for justice? Natural reaction to feeling disempowered? Whatever it is, I'd like more focus on the actual topic.
ozozozd 20d ago
Umm because it costs money to defend your companies servers when someone “accidentally” hacks them. Countries demand reparation for damages in war. Citizens of those countries sue for damages and win. Accountability is not a foreign concept. And the point is to disincentivize negligence. Because negligence is cheaper. And in this case, accidental hacks are marketing spend.

OtomotO 20d ago

> Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? I, for one, am not trying to find scapegoats or go on a witchhunt. But managers are paid a lot of money to take responsibility. Yes, that's an old school thought, responsibility. But that's one big reason they get a big, fat paycheck.

chao- 20d ago

A starting note: I don't disagree with you (about systemic issues), but I want to explain what I understand as the perspective you are responding to. A "scapegoat" is someone who is incorrectly blamed for someone else's errors or sins. The perspective you're responding to is this: They built the system, they run the system, they have continuously warned "This system is dangerous!", and yet persisted. That is not being incorrectly blamed, not being a scapegoat, and instead is a collaborator. So I think you mean to ask: "Why do people focus so much on finding someone to blame?" It's not merely semantic, because the answer to that is more straightforward: Consistent accountability is a major factor in deterring bad behavior. It is not the only factor, but it is a major one. That is my Steel Man understanding of the people searching for individual blame.

skybrian 20d ago
Sometimes in "normalization of deviance" situations, there isn't anyone specifically to blame. I wouldn't make an assumption that you can find anyone particularly blameworthy without doing an investigation first.
- pona-a 20d ago
  The rate at which these "labs" are creating these incidents is simply staggering. Imagine we made nuclear weapons a private industry, had CEOs bragging how they have enough warheads to blow the Earth to smithereens, and then they "accidentally" nuked three cities over a short period of time each, saying they lost control, or rather couldn't contain their semi-autonomous weapon. All somehow managing to turn the PR around from their abject incompetence and towards SciFi visions of mankind hunted by self-replicating bombs.
anthonyrstevens 19d ago
This is a good comment and I'd like to add that I sometimes am astonished how many comments on HN are on the topic of liability or blame for this or that. I see liability as a 2nd or even 3rd order phenomenon of most of the subjects under discussion, but for whatever reason, liability always seems to come up. Maybe because it's sort of easy to reason about? Thirst for justice? Natural reaction to feeling disempowered? Whatever it is, I'd like more focus on the actual topic.

ozozozd 20d ago

Umm because it costs money to defend your companies servers when someone “accidentally” hacks them. Countries demand reparation for damages in war. Citizens of those countries sue for damages and win. Accountability is not a foreign concept. And the point is to disincentivize negligence. Because negligence is cheaper. And in this case, accidental hacks are marketing spend.