PurpleBoxDragon

Given the gambling example, should we be mad at the advertisers or at the forum for making money off of allowing such ads?

If the Gambling Association made a bunch of posters about their new lotto and paid anyone who put them up in buildings, and the person running the Gambling Anonymous meeting came and picked up a few to put up during their meetings, do you blame the Gambling Association or the one who picked up the posters?

Ads are currently such a nightmare because almost everyone making money off of them has chosen to go with services that handle everything instead of filtering their ads and hosting them locally because letting those services handle it all pays better. It allows for far more tracking and targeted ads, sometimes for better and sometimes for much worse.

A sane system would consider the knowledge and power differences between the average individual and the corporate lawyers who wrote the agreement, along with the one sided nature of the agreement, and void any consent as not having been possible to give. Likely the agreement would be treated as one signed by a child, where the more powerful party is the only one bound by it.

> may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against.

Cannot they already do this to some limited extent (and perhaps are even required to do so)? For example, laws concerning voting.

>which makes them look very different from normal traffic which kind of by necessity makes them look a lot more like bots.

But if they are doing so because they are disabled, and the difference means they receive a worse experience, may result in an ADA complaint (especially if a government service falling under section 508 is involved).

What about the deafblind?

>Blame the laws, not the company.

Why not both? If I move to a country that legally allows me to do something horrible, people will rightfully call me a bad person regardless of the legality of the action.

>the answer from the dev team is almost always, "Works as designed".

When I say 'works as designed', what I'm actually saying is that I didn't have control over the design, go talk to the ones who did.

>There are cases that I'm all for bashing Google when they don't give the company they're targeting enough time to patch something

While I understand the common ethos of our current culture supports this, has there been analysis if giving what could constitute a second chance to fix security issues leads to less prioritization of security initially? I could definitely see a business deciding to lower their security expenditure since if an issue is found, they will be given a grace window to fix it before the world hears about it. It would still be damaging, but it would be far less since the PR machine could spit out that it was patched before it was announced to the world.

There has to have been some agreement to limit the grace period since people will go live once a reasonable time frame to fix it has passed and they won't be judged negatively if others agree reasonable time was given. So if we won't judge someone for giving only 6 months instead of 3 years, what about the one who gives only 2 weeks instead of 6 months? How do we calculate which of two time frames is better?

In C# var is always a place holder for the actual type which the compiler only accepts if it can figure out the type. If you do anything to the var that you can't do to the actual type it will still give you a compile time error.

And they do. But what exactly is that line. Prurient content that empowers people? Banned. Content that literally allows control over non-consenting individuals based on their gender? Accepted.

This is like a serial killer who campaigns against littering. They have a line they won't cross, but we shouldn't accept it.

>If we enforce some morals and not others in our app stores, who exactly do we choose as the arbiters of morality?

Apple and Google are, and their moral guideline is money. They are in the business of making money. If the content seems close enough to illegal and small enough revenue to not be worth investigating it, or if the content is legal but costs more to host than it brings in due to backlash, it will be censored. I would even guess that content that is illegal but brings in enough money won't be banned (unless a court order comes in that isn't worth the cost to fight).

One can just look at Reddit's history of banning content and see that it bans things not based on morals or laws but on when it stopped being a revenue generation. The allowed their most popular sub-reddit for years until moral outrage grew due to a news investigation, and then banned it under the guise of being illegal and protecting minors (despite the content not being illegal, as the federal government wouldn't have allowed to continue operating had it been).

Don't Apple and Google already block plenty of legal content they don't want to deal with? Consumers should force them to explain why they are willing to deal with this specific content.

> They’ve been exempt / free from responsibility for far too long.

I've seen arguments that the government not allowing these debts to be discharged through bankruptcy was a major cause of the problem. Do we want more market manipulation, or should we start teaching students that because the government has allowed for a trap even bankruptcy cannot escape, you need to learn how to avoid it?

Is it that they are helping insufficiently, or that they are using this as a strategy for making money and showing their true colors by engaging in it only to the extent they make money? It is easier to support someone whose intentions are to help despite an imperfect execution than it is to support someone whose intention is to fake helpfulness only to the extent it beneficial to them, even when both result in people being helped.

Getting research subjects is hard. For any significant sort of test beyond a simple survey, it is really really hard. So colleges force their undergrads to be participants so that the graduates have enough fodder to write research papers off. Of course, the IRB views this as unethical, so all the undergraduates are given an alternative to being a participant in research, at which point it becomes a question of crafting an alternative that is painful enough all the undergrads choose being a research subject but not so painful the IRB considers it unethical.

I'm use to the alternative being a research paper that can easily take 20 times longer to complete than being a test subject.

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable.

The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.