5 ms·

Transparency doesn't matter without consequences. Many of the currently ruling governments have demonstrated that already.

js8 3mo ago
You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.
- bluebarbet 3mo ago
  >You're wrong As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.
  - staplers 3mo ago
    Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..
- classified 3mo ago
  > it's an important step in maintaining fairness. When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.
  - js8 3mo ago
    Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness. And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences. It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences. But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
    - wizzwizz4 3mo ago
      If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.
      - spongebobstoes 3mo ago
        transparency is knowledge, and is a prerequisite for accountability
      - anigbrowl 3mo ago
        What are you going to seek consequences for, if there isn't sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring? We already know what bad stuff is being done This is a witch-finding mentality: witchcraft exists, I suspect this person of being a witch, therefore burning them at the stake is justified.
        wizzwizz4 3mo ago
        There is sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring, and we can usually rule out other actors circumstantially to give us a suspect – often Facebook, Google, or another "Big Tech" company. There isn't enough transparency to conclusively prove it's them (as opposed to some secret shadowy conspiracy who've concealed all other evidence of their existence – which we do need to rule out, for the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard), but that's what the legal fact-finding process is for.

js8 3mo ago

You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.

bluebarbet 3mo ago
>You're wrong As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.
- staplers 3mo ago
  Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..
classified 3mo ago
> it's an important step in maintaining fairness. When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.
- js8 3mo ago
  Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness. And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences. It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences. But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
  - wizzwizz4 3mo ago
    If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.
    - spongebobstoes 3mo ago
      transparency is knowledge, and is a prerequisite for accountability
    - anigbrowl 3mo ago
      What are you going to seek consequences for, if there isn't sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring? We already know what bad stuff is being done This is a witch-finding mentality: witchcraft exists, I suspect this person of being a witch, therefore burning them at the stake is justified.
      - wizzwizz4 3mo ago
        There is sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring, and we can usually rule out other actors circumstantially to give us a suspect – often Facebook, Google, or another "Big Tech" company. There isn't enough transparency to conclusively prove it's them (as opposed to some secret shadowy conspiracy who've concealed all other evidence of their existence – which we do need to rule out, for the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard), but that's what the legal fact-finding process is for.