Twitter | Search | |
DHH
Imagine actually believing this shit: "All those kids would be dead today". This is how you justify total and complete domination of kids, their communications, their reading/viewing patterns. WE'RE SAVING THEIR LIVES HERE!!! šŸ¤®
Reply Retweet Like More
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
When you trade in counterfactuals like this, every tactic becomes fair game. It's the IF WE COULD SAVE JUST ONE CHILD fallacy of surveillance justification. But why stop with monitoring all kids? Surely you could save many more by monitoring all adults too!
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
The problem with focusing on these make-believe counterfactuals is also that you blind yourself to the immense harm you're subjecting everyone you didn't "save" to. Growing up under the constant watching of Bark's AI panopticon is child abuse in and of itself. With 100% hit rate.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
Yes, if you watch everything someone does, everything someone says, everything someone watches, and everything someone reads, it may well be possible to catch some bad thoughts/actions/intentions. But this "cure" is infinitely worse than the disease when looking at whole herd.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
The present has always been scary for adults worrying about children. Whether it's rock'n'roll music, the walkman, dungeons & dragons, skateboards, smoking, drinking, sex. But squeezing life so tight that all privacy disappears may save one kid but it'll choke a thousand more.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
Can you imagine growing up under a regime where your parents had a transcript of every conversation you ever had with a friend to some evaluation business that'd rummage through it for bad words or bad thoughts? A life with zero privacy is not a life worth living.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
Also, there are no easy answers to parenting. Talking to your kids about principles, values, heuristics, and dangers is fucking hard. Outsourcing this to some AI-baked surveillance service is the easy out here.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
Kids have a right to privacy. Freedom to explore who they are in communication with their peers, without someone watching, reporting, and disapproving. No danger that lurks in this world is worth canceling this basic freedom for unilaterally.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @dhh
It breaks my heart that Bark is using Rails to violate these kids. I think I've been largely pretty good at accepting that I'd never agree with everything all the many users of Rails did with what I started, but this one pains deep in my soul šŸ˜°
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch
What's also just disgusting is the $9 million in VC that Bark recently raised. To return this, they need hockey stick growth. The more parents they can convince to 0wn their kids, the better. Here's a depressingly oblivious puff piece from :
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch
"I only get notifications if there are items of concern (sex, depression, bullying, profanity, etc.) Totally worth it!" -Bark Mom That's a real testimonial šŸ’€
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch
Great point brought up by @adam_n_p: Kids are overwhelmingly more likely to be abused by their own parents than by strangers. Surveillance tech targeted at kids is arming those parents with more data, more reasons to inflict their abuse.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
Bark is in direct violation of 's Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 16: "No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation".
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
Also, A12 from Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such.. attacks".
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
There's a fair argument that Bark would be in violation of both declarations, which, if, say, Rails was licensed under the Hippocratic License, could mean they'd be bared from using it.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
Also, just imagine how we'd all flip our shit if a single entity gathered all our communications from 24 different apps and social networks. What are the odds they'll never have a data breach? (Hopefully by the hand of some of the kids!) Zero.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
I read through Bark's privacy policy. Nary a word on data expiring or being deleted, as long as the parent remains a customer. So yes, having this collection of "transgressions" just live in the Bark DB for years is horrifying.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
Another great point. Some data may simply be so utterly toxic that it is not safe for any company to hold. This seems to fall squarely in this category.
Reply Retweet Like
DHH Oct 29
Replying to @TechCrunch @UNICEF
I'd like to think I had pretty permissive parents, but I would still have been absolutely stifled and mortified if I knew all my communications had gone through their screener. And I was running BBS software while living at home.
Reply Retweet Like