[godelski]

  > is not feasible at that scale

I want to use an analogy here. The same arguments are often made about cleaning up environmental damage. So either make the companies doing the polluting pay for the costs themselves or if we care so much about them being profitable then we subsidize them by paying for those cleanup efforts out of taxes. Doing nothing is a worse form of subsidy as it not only costs more (in literal dollars) but shoulders that costs onto the people with the least ability to pay for it. The problem is you're treating "doing nothing" as having no cost. It has a high cost, but the cost is also highly distributed.

So if it is not scalable, then why subsidize them? This is literally a tragedy of the commons situation. Personally, I'm in favor of making the people who make a mess clean up that mess. I really don't understand why this is such a contentious opinion.

[ryandrake]

We keep letting em get away with the same old excuse: "The company can't fix X problem because it operates 'at scale' and you'd need millions of humans to perform corrective action Y at that same scale!"

[godelski]

We keep letting people get away with a lot of thought terminating cliches. I've learned that people are desperate for an answer, but incurious to the answer.

I guess to be fair there's no "the" answer as reality is incredibly complex, but that's a whole other conversation