Seems petty clear the intent of the post you are replying to isn't to hold random parents accountable for thousands and instead to hold app developers (add maybe too open app marketplaces) accountable for malicious app behavior
I get your take that people should take the responsibility for things they are doing.
Without arguing your point there are a couple more things to consider from the perspective of the company and the society at large.
From the company perspective, if their product gets a bad reputation the sales will be worse. This could even extend beyond the one product. It doesn't matter if it is fair or nuanced at all. Even if everyone is a moron, investing in protecting the morons from themselves could be a good business decision.
From the society perspective, there is a positive-for-business intent in forcing a baseline for consumer safety and satisfaction. Threading that needle is of course hard but it makes it easier for a free market of consumer products to exist as a whole if the consumers can offload some of the investigation required before committing to something. The idea is that in a 100% buyer beware situation there is less buying overall and the market can't be big and as full of options because the cost/risk of buying isn't worth the end goal. You can make the counter argument that the trust should be part of the brand value but it might enable new companies and new products more effectively (making more good options in a free market) to reduce the consumer risk of purchasing their products.
Additionally, if everyone is doing the same prerequisite research (is this safe before I buy), it makes sense to consolidate this step either through curation/certification groups (the people who care fund it themselves - makes sense for specific preference choices [eg "plant based", "cruelty free"] or niches [eg "gluten free", "non gmo"]) or regulation (everyone funds it collectively - makes sense for broad application like "will I get food poisoning" and "am I risking being maimed").
Beyond personal purchases there's also society wide implications worth preventing for things like if a million cars exploded or if 10% of profession X and profession Y ended up losing fingers.
Like I said, not arguing with you about if people are dumb and if companies should be required to pay to deal with that, just pointing out there are other reasons a system might be in place beyond just a patronizing nanny state situation.
Another way to put it is that Logic deals with cause and effect situations with a correlation of 1. It's possible to have a correlation of 99%, which would be a logical error, but still a very useful bit of practical knowledge.
In this case, I would definitely agree that people that act sloppily in one aspect of business will almost always do the same in other aspects. More generally, I'd say that most classical logical fallacies are actually useful rules of thumb.
* Appeal to authority, ad hominem: the conclusion might be true, you often have to judge a person's moral character and experience too.
* Appeal to tradition, wealth, poverty: sometimes the speaker has life experiences that justify the conclusion, but can't be explained in a brief conversation.
* Ad baculum: sometimes it's wise to stop engaging with the counterpart.
* Ad populum, to emotion: sometimes the argument is not really about the truth of a proposition(the existence of a problem, and gravity thereof), but about how politically feasible it is to do something about it.
* Correlation, not causation: correlation is evidence of causation in favour of the current best explanation. What that might be, is a matter for discussion. In day-to-day life we almost always lack the time for achieving 100% certainty.
More generally, very often people don't have time discuss a matter with treatise-level precision and diligence. We almost always have to rely on a judgement of the speaker or other circumstances, see also standards of proof in legal systems.
Sometimes the true core of an argument is not really expressed overtly, whether consciously or not, and you have to figure out what the discussion is really about (very useful advice in a marriage or any close relationship).
What does this have to do with cameras covering little kids doing gymnastics?
I'm sorry you had a bad experience and using cameras to protect yourself is a thing but filming kids doing gymnastics seems very very far from purely defensive.
Why does the video footage need to be able to be viewed live, remotely, by a sales team and a prospective client in another state?
Predators have access to these cameras. There are numerous instances of police using these systems to stalk women.
If I want video proof of what happened at a school, I’m much more comfortable with it being held on premises in a tamper evident location. That eliminates some of the predators from the situation.
> You think miners don't make a difference or save lives?
Do you think miners mining is saving lives in the same way that doctors saving lives is saving lives?
To continue the parents point, do you think miners derive a deep or powerful satisfaction from some of their mining work which might offer some of the heavy cost it has on them physically and emotionally?
I think miners save more lives (through the supply of gas, energy, battery materials, pesticides, fertilizers, solar panel minerals, and ultimately electricity, computing materials, etc) than doctors do.
And I think what prevents miners to "derive a deep or powerful satisfaction from some of their mining work which might offset some of the heavy cost it has on them physically and emotionally" is not anything inherent in their work, but people thinking that only direct affect should be prestigious and satisfying and underapreciating the thankless background work to keep the lights on.
Same way people sneer at cleaning people or teachers and their meagre salaries and no respect, or domestic labor.
Ironically the street guru hucksters might have a better track record than the dangerous products mentioned above.
Less charitably, it's a mistake to imply that simply being a bigger corporation makes you go from street guru to "expert". Bigger company trying to make money off of you at any risk to you is just the same bucket at a different scale. In this context the other side is probably "expert consumer advocate" since that fits the idea above of these dangerous products advertised as cure alls.
It can be worse in terms of justice. You might be able to charge or win in court against a street hustler. Most people can't beat a big company in court. They usually won't even try.
I honestly agree with you in many respects, I'm simply spinning in some nuance to a topic I keep seeing.
The snake oil salesmen is productive precisely because the actual effects of the snake oil they are selling is unknown to the consumer they are introducing it to. There isn't easy answers to this, it's just a fact of life that we can try our best mitigate.
And apparently fish oil actually does help your brain. Weird world we live in.
So I think the focus on "experts" is actually a consequence of declining institutional credentialism. You didn't trust them for claiming to be experts, you trusted the institutions who called them experts and said you should trust them for that reason. But expertise implies competence not trust. Not everyone operates with good intentions even with the right credentials, including many institutions themselves.
> 1): you have things backwards, the EvanFlow is not something i came up with but rather something i discovered similar to the dao. i am named Evan after the EvanFlow not the other way around.
reply