Post #1952993

2026-04-27 02:54 UTC

@fishidwardrobe @mattly The understanding I have is that original intentions mean nothing in the case of systems. What matters is what it does. That allowing such a system to continue is by definition allowing and authorizing that what the system does is it's purpose. If that wasn't the case, action would have been taken to correct it or kill it. Thus for any system that persists, to the entities that influence it's continued existence: what the system does must be desired by those entities. Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system. Maybe I'm missing it, or muddying the waters. Maybe it's to late on a Sunday.

Replies (1)

@fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de 2026-04-27 03:02

@RyeNCode @mattly > The understanding I have is that original intentions mean nothing in the case of systems. What matters is what it does. agreed. what i said. > Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system. that's a stretch. they might not understand what the system is doing (disagreeing about the effects of a system is normal); they might not actually have power to fix it, for example because the ultimate effects of a system are soft. there's a story about how the lego world mmo was (eventually, reluctantly) shut down because they couldn't stop folks building dicks. you might say the purpose of the system was to build dicks; that's what it DID. but the designers couldn't stop it. just two reasons why they might not be able to change a system.

Open ##1952994