7 ms·

Having a global objective of reducing suffering sounds great, in theory. Solving the problem of obtaining clean water in drought stricken areas with new technol

Having a global objective of reducing suffering sounds great, in theory. Solving the problem of obtaining clean water in drought stricken areas with new technology is a great example of something 'we' can do to help reduce suffering. It remains that people still have to chose to drink water from a newfangled device. Deciding a service people chose to use is causing increased suffering is a great example of something that isn't our problem to solve. They chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices. It's not on you, or me, or anyone else to reduce their suffering. That said, people choosing to use a centralized shared store of information for their sensitive data can quickly put them in cognitive dissonance when combining the expectations that the provider will keep their data safe and secure with the desire to achieve the results promised by said site. The real reason we should be satisfied that AM got hacked was not because affairs are immoral. It's that AM was entrusted with sensitive data about it's users that it failed to protect. If a company stores someone's sensitive data in a centralized way with their software, and fails to protect it, they are just as bad as AM. Edit: Added some thoughts and removed a blaming statement.

aetherson 11y ago
What is the line you draw between a service dedicated to enabling affairs, and a service dedicated to enabling, say, emotional spousal abuse? Or physical spousal abuse? Because, those people chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices, right? I'm pretty libertarian. I'll basically stand by the right of anyone to do something that makes themselves desperately unhappy because they're adults and can make their own choices. I don't think it should be illegal to cheat on your spouse, and if people want to marry people who are clearly making them unhappy -- even hurting them -- then the most I'll do is strongly suggest they reconsider their choices. But it's a whole different matter to set up a service dedicated to profiting from enabling behavior that's making other people miserable. That's shitty. It shouldn't be illegal, its users should still have privacy, but I'll shed no tears if the proprietors of said service get forced to shut it down.

aetherson 11y ago

What is the line you draw between a service dedicated to enabling affairs, and a service dedicated to enabling, say, emotional spousal abuse? Or physical spousal abuse? Because, those people chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices, right? I'm pretty libertarian. I'll basically stand by the right of anyone to do something that makes themselves desperately unhappy because they're adults and can make their own choices. I don't think it should be illegal to cheat on your spouse, and if people want to marry people who are clearly making them unhappy -- even hurting them -- then the most I'll do is strongly suggest they reconsider their choices. But it's a whole different matter to set up a service dedicated to profiting from enabling behavior that's making other people miserable. That's shitty. It shouldn't be illegal, its users should still have privacy, but I'll shed no tears if the proprietors of said service get forced to shut it down.