For most tech, the design is aligned with the goals of the business that made it. Until you invent ethically aligned capitalism, limited progress can be made.
Ethically aligned capitalism is just regular capitalism with ethically aligned people, no different from the ethically aligned version of any other society.
No. Companies believe their only duty is to protect shareholder value, so that's what drives their decision making, not ethics. As long as we have that problem, it won't matter how many ethical people we have in our society. As of right now, we have plenty of people who want to do the right thing, but can't because they'll lose their jobs.
Blaming people over systems tends to suit mammalian instincts, but it's not constructive. We can change how society is structured, but not what it's composed of.
Some of the insights they pull from this data: Most tickets are issues in majority-black wards, in places with high poverty rates. Motorists in these wards were found more at risk of losing a vehicle or declaring bankruptcy. Most tickets that are contested are in more well-to-do, majority-white wards, and contested tickets have more than a 50% chance of the driver being found not liable.
Here's what I draw from this: Parking tickets frequently trap the poor into a cycle of debt. People who have money and free time have more resources available to challenge the ticket and not have to pay.
That doesn't say to me "we should forgive tickets for low income residents" but it says to me we need to find other ways to enforce the parking laws that don't just make the poor even poorer.
Tickets should be adjusted for income. If someone making $200,000 a year has to pay $50 for parking in the wrong place then someone who makes $20,000 should have to pay $5.
I swear, every HN article, you get 10% of the comments are about the article being discussed, and the other 90% are people quibbling over the headline.
Ok, that's an exaggeration.
And when the comments are good, they are really good. Makes the entire HN experience worthwhile.
So sorry? I mentioned Shodan as a way of tying it to other leaks of negligence and I why I thought this was relevant, and not just a tossaway clickbait article. I think my disagreement is deeper in nature than semantic on the headline. I even dropped in HIPAA as a model for regulations of shared private info, as gross as it may be to think about in a regulatory sense.
The chief contradiction I see - The product chief claims youtube has been taking this problem seriously, while this report implies youtube has ignored the problem for some time, going as far as to avoid searching for videos to claim plausible deniability. According to the bloomberg article, YouTube was aware of the "bad virality" problem for sometime, but it was never addressed.
My theory of HN comments: People prefer to respond to familar arguments, rather than the arguments you make in your comments. People prefer to discuss topics that they are familiar or passionate about, rather than the specific topics addressed in the articles or parent comments.
I don't see why it wouldn't be legal, it's Comcast's infrastructure, right? If the public says "Hey Comcast, why are you letting extremists use your network to connect themselves to the world and transmit dangerous ideas?" I don't see why Comcast wouldn't be allowed to decide to cave under the pressure and disconnect me.
> The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
Another phrase I've heard recently is along the lines of "a company's ability to refuse to do business with you should be proportional to your ability to refuse to do business with them".
It's not too much of a stretch to liken some of the big platforms and service providers we have today to company towns. While, strictly speaking, one doesn't have to (live in a company town)|(subscribe to Comcast), for some large segments of the population who (live in economically disadvantaged regions where the only jobs are available via the Company)|(are forced to choose between dealing with Comcast and cutting themselves off from social and economic activity), that's not much of a choice in practice.
For the moment, I think that line of "inescapable enough to warrant restriction of property rights" falls to include infra providers (think cartel ISPs, some PAAS, DNS, maybe CloudFlare if you squint) but not platforms like YT/FB. That's probably down to my bias towards technical solutions over regulatory intervention - there's at least a reasonable hope of displacing YT/FB with decentralized platforms, but short of mesh radio you're SOL if your only ISP that offers >56k doesn't want you.
Which was subsidized, made scarce, and then sold to Comcast by the government. There's a reason people are calling for broadband providers to be considered common carriers, because the market isn't "free" (as in competitive).
