zlacker

>>neelc+(OP)
The problem here is that most people don't give a crap. I was explaining this situation to my girlfriend last night over a drink. She's a high level academic with a strong mathematical and logical background in a different field but she didn't really formulate an opinion on it past "if my stuff keeps working, why is it a problem?". Which is fair, because it's a hypothetical risk, but the side effects are a net negative and the open nature of the web is at risk.

As always people see the happy path down the middle of the forest, not the creatures waiting to leap out and eat them two steps down the line.

>>baz00+8t
> The problem here is that most people don't give a crap

Most people are not qualified to give a crap.

We don't adopt medicines on the basis of "most people's" opinion, we don't adopt anything technological with potentially harmful impact on the basis of the opinion of large uninformed masses.

Thats why we have regulators and other institutions that should be informed and give an informed crap. On a ongoing basis and not only a result of popular outrage.

Which brings us to regulatory capture and said institutions actually failing their mandate to serve the interests of the people that fund them.

But now we have something that most people should give a crap about. This is not technical, it goes to the foundation of democracy and governance. Otherwise we might as well stop voting and accept we live in a corporate oligarchy.