3 ms·
Essentially, the opposition was based on optimizing the handling of pathological cases - how to deal with abusers was considered more important than how to prov
by oldmanjay 11y ago
Essentially, the opposition was based on optimizing the handling of pathological cases - how to deal with abusers was considered more important than how to provide customers with the tools they wanted. This shows up all over society, from terrorism to 'think of the children', and any positive effects are nearly always swamped by the deleterious ones brought about by the perverse incentives created.
Shame that people don't see this ahead of time.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoPeople do, but those people are ignored. The voice of reason is almost always drowned out by the voice of panic and outrage. Not least of which because the panic and outrage describes consequences that sound applicable to the person hearing them (or their family), while the voice of reason explains problems that sound like they affect other people. ("if you have nothing to hide" is one of many instances of this pattern; having something to hide sounds like something that only affects other people.)
- Spivak 11y agoIf you read this in a different context you could be supporting the exact opposite view. Both sides are concerned with abusers and protecting customers but they have opposite views about who the customers and abusers are.