Unfortunately, this is the downward spiral of having bad actors. I kinda wish we lived in a world where communities could self-regulate and expel bad actors to let the ones who want to work together to achieve something can thrive.
> Bad actors should be named and shamed or else they never have to pay for their actions.
Sounds good in theory. Just be damned sure that someone is really a "bad actor", and not a good person with their hands tied, being manipulated by an upper management socio-path.
I dislike the direction for society you are proposing. Each bad actor should absolutely know how and why they are identified as a bad actor. How else could they possibly even attempt to defend themselves as not bad actors. The same kind of idiocy is allowed in banks now under the guise of BSA. The only difference is, banks typically face much harder restrictions and are actually heavily regulated. For that reason, I believe the parent's post makes more sense than a blanket 'it is too hard for us to do it'.
In short, you are proposing that we penalize good actors for actions of bad actors for no other reason that it creates inconvenience for a platform. That is not acceptable.
Yes, and in my article I state that: "The second problem with exclusion of supposed bad actors is that it is prejudicial. Even bad actors add to the diversity of a crowd."
The term is there, I'll change it if anyone has a better one.
Edit: in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration.
This isn't what actually happens in reality because highly unethical behavior is distasteful to most people and for the most part people don't want to work alongside unethical people. Your river analogy has similarly flawed premises that make it hard to even engage with.
Not just luxury, but it is making us collectively incapable of dealing with bad actors. Over time, we (as an industry or culture or whatever) are loosing behaviors and skills needed to expose or minimize harm.
Meanwhile, culture is increasingly dictated by bad actors - making it even harder to oppose them. For example, some of what is said to be "professionalism" are basically rules that make it harder to deal with bad actors or companies.
I don't really like the "bad actor" model of things. You don't just want people who aren't going to engage in that sort of behavior regardless of context. You also want people who are professional enough to figure out what's allowed and work within that box.
> It's just we don't even consider areas of influence where we have no concern.
This is one of the things that is at the heart of many arguments about "deep culture", bigotry, sexism etc -- and why people so often talk past each other. If an actor is blind to the effect of their actions, they are difficult to convince that they probably should change their actions. To them, their actions don't have any effect (or given the audience, their functions aren't as side-effect free as they think they are... ;-).
If you have a formula to infallibly decide that A is a "bad actor" for any A in actual practice, you have solved the organizational problem of the past few millennia.
I did read your post. I just disagree with it entirely. You're picking and choosing who gets to be a bad actor based on your moral compass. That's a thing you can do, but I have a different compass. Don't expect appeals on the axis of your internalized morality to be compelling?
You can choose how you spend your time. But that doesn't mean you can choose how people evaluate that time and if it's fair or not. This is a direct consequence of your own point!
This thing where you suggest I listened in "bad faith" but your point is dancing around the definition of "can" seems pretty bad faith to me.
I think it depends. To me bad actor seems more like a technical term than a moral one. I can see how it's easy to pass judgment on people described literally as "bad" in some way, but only if I'm unprofessionally intertwining my morals with my ethics. If you don't believe in punishment in the first place then such terms lose their deontological charge.
Rouge actors tend to be an issue in all large organizations. Because as an organization gets larger, its middle and top levels are increasingly dominated by zero-sum political games, as opposed to directly relevant outcomes. And if you're a rouge actor, that's precisely the setting you're most comfortable in.
reply