5 ms·

Perhaps it's a British thing but I wouldn't have paid the thief either. It seems like doing such would perpetuate this activity. It's far more moralistic than p

by tarkin2 19y ago

Perhaps it's a British thing but I wouldn't have paid the thief either. It seems like doing such would perpetuate this activity. It's far more moralistic than pragmatic, but I guess he and I value those more than monetary benefits. I would only pay him if I was sure I could successfully bring criminal proceedings against him - otherwise I would have done what this man did: refused to perpetuate this criminal activity and wrote about my experiences to warn others and therefore ultimately damage this kind of activity through awareness.

edw519 19y ago
This kind of thing persists for the same reason as spam, because, sometimes, it works. They will only stop when "everyone" stops enabling.
- mattmaroon 19y ago
  So if you know "everyone" will not stop enabling, and you know most people won't, should you do so, even at great cost to yourself?
  - edw519 19y ago
    I guess that would depend on the cost. This reminds me of the story of the old man who was picking up beached starfish and throwing them back into the sea. A young man came by and said, "You old fool! There are thousands are starfish dying here - you can never save them all. Don't you see that what you're doing doesn't matter?" As the old man threw another into the sea, he responded, "To that one it does."
  - tarkin2 19y ago
    I agree it depends on the cost. If it literately meant I would lose my home if I did not pay the thief then I definitely would pay him/her. But as to your argument about "everyone", it's more about diminishing this market rather than effacing it. I doubt any market can be completely effaced. But the real tipping point comes when a majority of people believe that they can or cannot affect this market. If people accept they cannot alter things, the market will flourish through acquiescence. If people accept they can affect the market, and encourage others to do the same, then they will; If you can get enough people to believe they can do something, then they will do that something through the sheer force of community action. If the web community accepts they more or less must pay thieves who do this then the market, fuelled by the thieves' acknowledgement of this, will flourish. If the community decides they will not pay thieves who have managed to do this then the thieves will eventually realise that this market has diminished. Of course, this requires a community effort and most people will not think of the wider implications of their, albeit beneficial to themselves, actions.

by tarkin2 19y ago

edw519 19y ago

This kind of thing persists for the same reason as spam, because, sometimes, it works. They will only stop when "everyone" stops enabling.

mattmaroon 19y ago
So if you know "everyone" will not stop enabling, and you know most people won't, should you do so, even at great cost to yourself?
- edw519 19y ago
  I guess that would depend on the cost. This reminds me of the story of the old man who was picking up beached starfish and throwing them back into the sea. A young man came by and said, "You old fool! There are thousands are starfish dying here - you can never save them all. Don't you see that what you're doing doesn't matter?" As the old man threw another into the sea, he responded, "To that one it does."
- tarkin2 19y ago
  I agree it depends on the cost. If it literately meant I would lose my home if I did not pay the thief then I definitely would pay him/her. But as to your argument about "everyone", it's more about diminishing this market rather than effacing it. I doubt any market can be completely effaced. But the real tipping point comes when a majority of people believe that they can or cannot affect this market. If people accept they cannot alter things, the market will flourish through acquiescence. If people accept they can affect the market, and encourage others to do the same, then they will; If you can get enough people to believe they can do something, then they will do that something through the sheer force of community action. If the web community accepts they more or less must pay thieves who do this then the market, fuelled by the thieves' acknowledgement of this, will flourish. If the community decides they will not pay thieves who have managed to do this then the thieves will eventually realise that this market has diminished. Of course, this requires a community effort and most people will not think of the wider implications of their, albeit beneficial to themselves, actions.