I'd probably say not to worry too much. I think that the question isn't whether public posting creates additional risk, it's whether that marginal risk matters given the baseline risk.
If there is a super persuader around, it has many avenues of attack, such as a $5 wrench in the hands of a more gullible person.
I think that “deep nonconsent preference”, is messy, not as compact as it could be. I think a better explanation is that women select for men who could protect them (Not exclusively of course), and an important part of protecting is the capacity for violence, decisiveness, initiative-taking, and being comfortable with tension. These traits match up with your observations.
Running an encounter with a mindset of “deep nonconsent preference” could look the same as one with a "deep demonstrated capacity to protect preference" mindset, but has an important failure case if, as it turns out, she wasn't actually interested in you.
Steamrolling over consent issues is certainty one way to demonstrate "capacity to protect", but its rather risky and there are other better ways to indicate your fitness.
Legal ≠ consequence-free. Yes, reporting police locations is legal - Waze does it daily. But there's a relevant difference between "drivers avoiding speed traps" and "people with deportation orders evading enforcement."
The app is multi-use. Potential users:
1. Researchers wanting data on enforcement patterns
2. Legal residents avoiding hassle/intimidation
3. People with deportation orders evading enforcement
4. People actively helping category 3 evade enforcement
The developer can't control which use case dominates. But category 3 and 4 users have the strongest incentive to use and contribute to the app - they're the ones with real stakes. Selection effects mean they'll likely dominate the user base.
I'm not claiming the app is illegal. I'm saying "it's legal" doesn't fully address whether AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host. Those are different questions.
People would use your app to do illegal things? Isn't that a success of the AWS Trust and Safety employee?
I think you may be confusing "Iegal" and "aligns with your politics".
Ahh, i liked the music, but cannot find it now. Is it available somewhere?
Agree with Dagon here, when omnizoid say's "Its obvious that you should" they are calling on the rules of their own morality. Its similar with "Her suffering is bad", that's a direct moral judgment. Both statements fall apart when you consider that someone may have different moral rules than you.
For example, in NZ we have an issue with deer destroying our native bush which in turn hurts our native birds. Deer are considered an invasive species and are actively eradicated. In the case when you are actively in the presence of a hurting deer empathy drives you to help, suffering is not pleasant to witness. However I suspect that many NZ's would condemn every deer in NZ to a painful death, as long as they didn't have to witness it, in order to save our trees and birdlife.
Yes, quite right (first paragraph). Am I wrong to be confident in my own beliefs? Happy to change my beliefs if your argument is convincing enough.
I think that platonic morality is a social technology with both mechanism and purpose. My definition of platonic morality is "a socially enforced set of informal rules that solve coordination problems for the benefit of the group". I would judge any particular moral rule set by how well it benefits the group. Slaves benefit their society less than doctors, even if only because resources must be spent to control them, and so they would have a lower moral weight.
Other interesting social technologies include:
Money: Coordinates exchange and stores value through shared belief
Laws: Structure behaviour through formalized rules and consequences
Limited liability companies: Enables pooling capital while limiting risk
Voting: Aggregates preferences into collective decisions
Google says that morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." I think that's consistent with my definition. I suppose i have added a utilitarian aspect by giving morality a purpose. I do find that things have purposes generally, am I wrong in that or in the specific purpose I have given it?
I want to be a little careful here, i'm not saying that this or that thing is "Right" or "Wrong" that's what morality does, I'm trying to describe what "Morality" is. So yes, I suppose a slave would get a lower moral weight than a doctor, shall we say 0.8 of your average society member for the slave and 1.2 for the doctor? This is certainly what we observe in history, where skilled helpful professionals are more valued than the less skilled and not very willing.
A slave's willingness is a lot more important a factor in their utility than that of a shrimp. I would give a shrimp a moral weight of 0.0.
In the American context slavery is also wrapped up with racism, which I think is wrong from both my personal morality and also from my half-baked "recognition of usefulness helps everyone get along and makes for greater prosperity" standard.
I think that modern wage / economic slavery (doing a job) is much more efficient / effective, in part because the human is recognised and applauded for their usefulness and works much harder because of it.
You know you are quite right; I hadn't properly considered willingness. Would this work as an addendum?
"While shrimp provide value as food, this doesn't grant them moral weight in the same way voluntary cooperation does. Moral consideration stems from needing others to willingly participate in society - we care about their wellbeing because their willing cooperation matters. A shrimp's utility is independent of its willingness, making it more like a resource than a social participant."
I will grant this is not a very nice thing for the shrimp...
I once attended an event run by and for the lowest of the lower class. It was absolutely horrifying. I cannot begin to describe to you how much of a culture shock it was to me. Attitudes and actions from 70 years ago, along with fragrant flouting of good sense, basic hygiene practises and law.
I also love humanity, but recognise the vast majority of us as mentally developed as young children, its hard to develop if no one around you is a good example and there is no incentive. I feel through that framing you can feel positively toward them, but without it I'm not so sure.
If you don't go to that sports bar, you will remain a "tiniest baby tree frog", go, learn, grow.