Hacker News Reader

Comment by perl4ever | Hacker News Reader

Sure, but if you think the law serves a purpose, then one may ask whether being technically compliant is success.

"if you think the law serves a purpose" Surely it is not controversial here to suggest that anti-discrimination laws serve a purpose and therefore if someone finds a loophole that does not mean it is just fine?

I was just reading in Jalopnik about how Toyota added reinforcement to their minivan to deal with small offset driver's side impacts, and then when a test for a similar passenger side impact was done, surprise surprise, there was no symmetric reinforcement on that side!

It's a start. They weren't even doing that.

Your use of the phrase "it's a start" suggests that further restrictions will follow.

No, it implies that they at least appeared to be trying, even if it wasn’t very effective.

As it is they don’t seem to have put in the smallest possible effort to comply and decided to ignore the law completely.

Is it more important that they "appear[] to be trying" than that the policy imposed on them actually achieve the ostensible policy goal?

For their legal case? I’d think so. It looks way better that you were trying to do something and weren’t very effective than that you decided not to bother.

For their need to comply? No. They have to follow ineffective laws as long as they’re on the books.

Where did people jump to the conclusion that following the law is incompatible with the goal of the law? Saying that it might be insufficient is a different matter.

You're responding to me as though I was providing Facebook's defense for not complying. I wasn't. I was saying that if Facebook technically complies, that isn't necessarily sufficient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com