> This is a case where someone who had direct decision-making authority during the time period when the very worst most dystopian parts of the technology business model were developed, perfected and entrenched. And he is giving this commencement speech to a group of students who have known nothing but that their whole lives. They're not like me. They didn't know a time before all of this. They didn't experience technology in the 80s or something like this.
I think this is hugely important context. New technologies are not being built in a vacuum. It's not like we haven't seen the negative side effects of these new technologies play out already, and like Casey said, many of the people who are voicing their concerns have only gotten to live through the bad parts.
> It didn't just happen because the tool was let loose on the public and it just happened. People built the bad parts of it. They did that.
There is a JFK quote that I think accurately sums up the issue
> Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.
People just don't want to be associated with bad things. Billionaires don't want to be associated with the negative parts of capitalism, CEOs don't want to be associated with the terrible things their companies do, and businesses that do wrong want to settle out of court, with no public statement of blame.
I'm not sure what the solution is though. Do we say, if you don't want to take ownership over the bad things that happen then we will down play your part in the good? Do we try to set up organizations that persecute those accountable? Should Eric Schmidt be in jail? Should he be fined? Do we as developers try to use the tools "for good?" I don't know, and I'd love to know what other people have to say on this