[maratc]

> just those where the people involved have opposing goals.

This describes every competition ever; person A wants the winner to be A, but person B wants the winner to be B. Should we stop doing doping tests at Olympic games, as it's an application of (non-free) technology to a social problem?

[vharuck]

Medical tests are only part of the solution there. They would be worthless without the more important component: a trusted third-party tester. As we've seen with DMCA takedowns on YouTube, an automatic third-party arbiter ends up favoring one side. Usually the one who learns to game it.

[ddingus]

And or the ones funding it.

That dynamic is exactly why so many people oppose electronic voting, electronic court "guidence" and other similar things.

People are super messy, complicated and the strength of automation coupled with the allure of doing less work is the root cause for an awful lot of unnecessary grief, despite let's say for discussion, the best of intent.

[maratc]

The imaginary solution works reliably in 100% cases, but the available solution works only in 99%. Should we accept that practical solution in the interim, or should we dismiss it and fall to a "perfect solution fallacy"?

[ddingus]

False choice.

What we can do put process in the mix.

The available solution coupled with time tested, production proven ways and means is about as good as we can get. And that is not very good, but it is livable and people value that a whole lot more than is given credit for.

Bad things are gonna happen no matter what, right?

Humans doing the messy human works are important. It ain't cheap. Never was, and for sure isn't now. But when we do that work, people do get options and overall harm is reduced, but more importantly, consent, acceptance, compliance all go up.