notsobig

I mean look, my goal is to communicate to the engineers involved in this business that they are responsible for the product they work on, and the monster they've created. People working for G and fb have options. If they choose to continue to work for these companies for great personal gain, at the cost of exploiting and tracking their own users (basically half of the world population?), they are not our friends and I think should not be treated as such. I don't want to play nice and read your blog and validate you, I want you to stop making the world a worse place.

Why do we grant them such a generous separation of work/personal life? They spend their day screwing us over, in the evening we all sing kumbaya? There's been no accountability.

Yes, my message is not going to bathe them in the positivity sunshine they've likely grown accustomed to in their work environment echo chamber. I am okay with that. Others might be more successful getting through to them with their slider closer to the carrot. I truly respect that ability, I just keep thinking appeasement is a failed strategy.

...I shouldn't have gone with "whoring" I suppose, sorry about that. I like the idea of serving your argument from your own site, decentralization and individuality and all that. But for some it's just another way to pad their resume to facilitate becoming more of the problem.

Not only do you spend your day job helping to clutter our web experience, suck up our personal data, and track us across the web, but you want to spend your free time whoring out your blog to us to try to justify the career choice you feel guilty about?

Just stop. We get one chance on earth, do something of value.

This would be an appropriate place to disclose your glaring conflict of interest.

guess what this guy does for a living...

No no but gates is our hero now... It disgusts me how short public memory can be.

i was amazed when i looked into it. brave did it, safari had it hidden in the developer menu, chrome: nope. i figured there was something to be gained for them.

ultimately there arent too many sites you type out much of an endpoint for, but "old.reddit.com/r/ihaveembarrassingsecrets" or whatever is a big one.

Honestly this is not relevant. My comment was not "what i think happened", it was "your argument is tilted crap". The action allegedly taken is not evidence of guilt, is all I was saying.

What's your point?

If a bio research lab is accidentally allowing the public to come in contact with anything it is studying, this is something we need to

1. investigate

2. identify

3. prevent

Saying "it's possible this could have happened anyway" is not meaningful. I would prefer we identify how it did happen. If a lab leaked it, this would inform future discussions on what lab practices and research projects have acceptable risk/reward.

Ignoring the possibility this leaked from a lab until you have bulletproof evidence is nonsensical, particularly when investigator access is restricted. This, more than anything, is the point the article is making. Lab containment failures have a well documented history.

"urgent law at lightning speed" is unnecessary and extreme bias. It might tell me something if you included a source.

A rational actor would take the opportunity to do this regardless of whether or not the source was known at the time. If it were even a possibility, you would hope they would use the outbreak as a reminder to take containment practices as seriously as possible.

Whether or not to allow foreign investigators is a political decision. Maybe they calculated it would appear as an admission of guilt or incompetence.