|
|
|
|
|
by cyphar
1339 days ago
|
|
Even if that does waive their legal liability (which I'm not sure it does), there is a moral obligation to try to not endanger the many people that the app developers know are going to disregard that warning. It would be intellectually dishonest for the developers of such apps to pretend that everyone who uses their app actually obeys that warning (there are plenty of YouTube videos instructing people to forage for things using these apps). |
|
Did the developers of google maps fail their moral obligation if they know some users will follow google map's directions, despite their GPS being broken, and go down wrong streets, walk into walls, get lost without water, etc?
Did the developers of the bird scooter app, which tells you to wear a helmet (but developers know that warning will be ignored), fail their moral obligation since they know some scooter riders won't actually know how to ride and will fall and be injured?
Do the developers of competitive sport apps, like strava, fail a moral obligation since they know some people will injure themselves trying to get on a leaderboard?
Like, I agree that there's a moral obligation for developers. But on the other hand, I feel like you can expect some baseline of "bad users who misuse the app horribly", and it feels like if that's enough to obligate you to not build said app, you just can't build anything. Just about anything can be misused, and at the scale of most apps, it's reasonable to expect it will be.
Is there something about plant identification that makes it more special than the other apps above?