These are the basic forces of commerce. Or any interaction. Amazon, target, even my loca coffee shops are not aligned with what’s best for me. They’re aligned with what’s best for them, with an eye towards maximizing overlap.
But where they want the customer to do something the customer wouldn’t, that happens everywhere. It’s not limited to tech.
Unless I’m mistaken, your credit score is your financial credit rating, not your social. It isn’t affected if you get a ticket jaywalking, or acting like a jerk.
There are interconnections between the two, but there are pretty clear distinctions.
A matter of time, I guess. Your "insurance score", as seen by insurance companies, provides information on how likely you're to be able to pay back a long-term loan, or even to be alive long enough to pay it back. And "insurance score" is based on increasingly deep insight into your lifestyle. It's only a matter of time before someone will have the bright idea to use "insurance score" as an input to credit score - and then, suddenly, you have social credit (sans the politics part).
Here, Facebook was a medium designed for maximum dispersion of information among groups of people--remember the pious crusade, "connecting the world"?--which, when carried out to the point that waves of toxic, destructive information can propagate across that medium, is just an insane thing to unleash upon the world without some really rigorous safety measures. The problem is that Facebook intentionally optimized for virality and completely ignored, repeatedly and aggressively, critiques that not all information dissemination is inherently good.
I don't know if that is or is not corporate negligence, but we should consider it so. It is detrimental to humanity, and they have continued to try to ignore the immense responsibility that the world now finds them in hold of. If they cannot very quickly act as responsible stewards of this immense power, they should not be entrusted with it. That is how government has always worked, and guess what! Making infrastructure public so that it can be regulated, monitored and managed for the public good turns out to be a good thing. FB is social infrastructure and needs to either accept and act on their deep responsibilities or cease trying to be social infrastructure.
Yes they were in fact complicit. They provided and subsidized a platform and then didn't bother to enforce their own community standards on that platform.
Perhaps read the BSR Myanmar report[1] and then read FB's own blog post where they agree with many of those findings in the BSR report[2].
That's an odd comparison to make; Boeing did not exert control over the passengers, crew, or flight path. Facebook exerts control over membership, access and exposure.
This argument would call for an end to the distinction between manslaughter and honicide, as an example.
It’s a great example of why we don’t allow victims, or relatives of victims, to or
Jesus their own justice. Because they don’t care about distinctions that we, as a society, have decided are important.
This argument would call for an end to the distinction between manslaughter and honicide, as an example.
Corporations should probably not enjoy that distinction in the same way that people do. The sooner we dispense with the harmful fiction of corporate personhood the better. Either way, let’s not conflate people and the law, with corporations and the law.
“Because, ma’am, I wanted to know who had read with sufficient attention that they would catch something so minor in the footnotes. Then I would know who had invested their time and attention in my paper.”
I think this is inaccurate. One, you can control your exposure while your product is crap. It’s just unlikely you’ll saturate your market before you can improve the product, if indeed your company is capable of improving the product.
Additionally, the downside isn’t “customers won’t use us bf they were burned”. It just creates a bump for the sales process to overcome. It’s an impediment to a sale, not a blocker.
Finally, before p/m fit, you need to be optimizing for learning over all else. More customers, even if they have a bad experience, brings more feedback. Also, you will have an asset - email list - of people who have signed up because you’re solving a problem they have curiousity / interest in.
Look at mongo. They’re now pretty successful by most evaluations, and they did this exact thing. Outside of Hn, very few remember how they over promised and under delivered.
