this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

Australian News

779 readers
4 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WaterWaiver@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I suspect this is a system where the result is inevitable:

  • Positive feedback: earning money for your company.
  • Negative feedback: none
  • Resources: vulnerable people

Adding negative feedback (eg watchdogs, regulators, financial consequences) can get you most of the way there to fixing this, but even a few remaining % of abuse is still a lot of actual vulnerable people getting mistreated. A well engineered solution to this problem would include removing the positive feedback; not just adding negative feedback.

EDIT: Addendum: Unlike financial resources, which can be fixed/repaid/etc when something goes wrong in a few % of cases, vulnerable people can't always be "fixed" after abuse. This is a key difference that the people making these policies and systems seem to be unaware of.