Dot. to TechnologyEnglish • 11 hours agoComputer programs monitor students’ every word in the name of safety.stateline.orgmessage-square22fedilinkarrow-up1177arrow-down14
arrow-up1173arrow-down1external-linkComputer programs monitor students’ every word in the name of safety.stateline.orgDot. to TechnologyEnglish • 11 hours agomessage-square22fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish6•6 hours agoLike any tool, the tech is fine. It’s the people using them that have been shown to be irresponsible. Therefore, we should not allow use of these tools.
minus-square@testfactorlinkEnglish1•3 hours agoThat argument could be expanded to any tool though. People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars? People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers? People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball? The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors. The answer is wildly more nuanced than “if it can hurt someone it must be banned.”
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•2 hours agoThe utility of these tools does not outweigh their misuse.
minus-square@testfactorlinkEnglish1•2 hours agoThat is what we’re debating, yes. If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child’s life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse? If not, how many children’s lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?
Like any tool, the tech is fine. It’s the people using them that have been shown to be irresponsible. Therefore, we should not allow use of these tools.
That argument could be expanded to any tool though.
People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?
People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?
People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?
The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.
The answer is wildly more nuanced than “if it can hurt someone it must be banned.”
The utility of these tools does not outweigh their misuse.
That is what we’re debating, yes.
If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child’s life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?
If not, how many children’s lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?