|
|
|
|
|
|
by bentinney
1383 days ago
|
|
|
That was an impressively long threaded argument just to agree with what the original poster stated. Essentially this boils down to the following:
cities and large tech companies are hugely complicated endeavors and if enough money and/or manpower is placed into a "documentation project" we could fully describe either system (using a combination of reality and socially acceptable fiction.) However, it would mostly likely be outdated by the time the project was finished - unless we froze the city/company in place which would most likely kill it. |
|
|
I think it's possible to get too abstract in discussion with an idea of "documenting a system" since that can of course shoot for a level of detail that can't be maintained. Here is a practical example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Information_Protectio...
When this law was to come into effect, every company that does business in China had to audit where they were storing all Chinese PII in order to figure out what they might need to change. For large companies, this involved making everyone perform this audit for their own little fiefdoms.
Being as this wasn't the kind of thing one can have lawyers go challenge in court, there were two options:
1. Actually do an audit (and if you're not dealing with exceptionally poor engineering, this should not have been as hard as keeping track of dependency libraries), rebuild everything from scratch (wasteful), or nuke absolutely anything that might have a chance of having Chinese PII (...unlikely from a business perspective).
2. Lie (internally / externally) and thereby break the law.
People in these comments seem to love the phrase "socially acceptable fiction" and I want to be very crisp that we are dealing with a clean dichotomy. You do the audit, or you lie and break the law.
Yes, I understand there are some among us who have so little integrity that they'll shrug at the latter option, that they'd fake the VW emissions test, that they'll cheat and embezzle and tell themselves that it was all inevitable anyway and anyone in their places would do the same. But this is not actually true. We would not all do this. Pretending this is normal variance gives cover to scummy people.
I therefore object to the root comment's characterization of this kind of thing exceeding real understanding as a natural consequence of scale/time. Yes, in terms of how it can come about that no individual knows this stuff, it's accurate – but only in the absence of the institution itself caring to pay attention. I object to succeeding characterizations that it is an inevitable attribute of social systems that meaningful control is impossible, because even educated and carefully hired professionals can apparently only be expected to behave with the ethics one might expect of a sixth grader who would rather let Chegg write his book report.
From the article, this is what FB is saying:
> “We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data, and thus we can’t confidently make controlled policy changes or external commitments such as ‘we will not use X data for Y purpose,’” the 2021 document read.
This may be accurate about Facebook; I would not know. What I do know is that it is not an inevitable consequence of scale and lifespan.