Thread by @soychicka

The reason I ask:

You're seeing those who helped cause the problem lament what they did - but who is extending legitimacy to those who tried to raise red flags ~10 years before it lead to insurrection?

Maybe the people WITH foresight are the ones you should start listening to.

https://twitter.com/soychicka/status/1363914043216560131

There's a real problem with continually fetishizing those who eventually came to realize their actions cause harm over those who can see and elucidate the risks in advance.

It normalizes - even promotes continuing to participate in ventures that put people at risk.

Think about it. It's great that @MichaelCohen212 and @Scaramucci had their "Come to Jesus" moment, but...

that _should_ show us that their judgement is flawed, and diminish our willingness to trust their judgement in the future, not to invite them to join the pundit class.

This isn't "cancel culture" - it's about extending trust to those who can be trusted; it's about extending responsibility to those who have not ignored, and have acted to mitigate the risk of harm in the work they do, or to stop doing the work.

It's about ensuring that every design decision to drive engagement is met with a full analysis of the potential benefits AND risks - and that businesses are liable for both any forseeable - AND unforseen but forseeable by SOMEONE.

At minimum, there needs to be a clearinghouse for the risks posed by technology, where any employees and all citizens can report their concerns, publicly accessible, which can be cited in legislation or litigation, or regulation... like a bug bounty for interaction design.

And, perhaps, those responsible for the regulation and/or legislation for social media should be pulled from those with a proven track record of foresight, with minimal participation in promulgating societal harm - rather than those who willingly profit from said manipulation.