When I talk about harm created by tech and someone immediately wants to discuss intentions, I've started to assume it's at least partly because they can easily imagine themselves causing the same harm & want to make sure they'll be judged only on their intentions when they do.
I don't mean this unfairly - I'm not bound to that assumption. But there are people who bring up intentions and people who don't. If I ask why they go there, I often don't get a very good answer.
Good intentions are necessary but not sufficient.
Good intentions are necessary but not sufficient.
People who have been on the receiving end of a wide variety of harms, both intentional and unintentional, seem to have a better intuitive sense that, for certain degrees of harm, the damage is the same.
And we also should consider who determines the degree of harm done.
And we also should consider who determines the degree of harm done.
This also isn't to say that I think they're trying to get *me* to commit to only judging them on their intentions. I think it's looking for reassurance for worry they feel (knowingly or not) bubbling up within them.
The worry itself isn't a problem. Thinking "oh no, I don't know if I would've known how to avoid doing that" is a great sort of reflection that can lead to the right place.
But it requires changing from "how can I avoid blame and punishment" to "how can I avoid causing harm".
But it requires changing from "how can I avoid blame and punishment" to "how can I avoid causing harm".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
