Hacker News Reader

> I figure that by now anybody that decides to farm out a critical portion of their business to a large company is able to figure out for themselves that such a dependency has risks as well as benefits.

This is a disingenuous argument in general. If cars were much more unsafe than they are, would you also blame car crash victim for driving a car knowing what the risks are?

View on HN

We can certainly blame a person for using an unsafe mode of transport. Is that up for debate?

My point is mostly that it shouldn't be used to argue against increased security for that mode of transportation.

The pattern is as follows:

- A: I had a really bad accident, we should make these vehicles more secure. - B: No, you had to be aware that it was risky.

- A: Stripe jeopardized our business, they really should have better customer support for these cases. - B: No, you had to be aware it was risky to use them.

It's a non-sequitur: the plight for increased security/customer support is in no way hampered by the fact that the buyer had to be aware of the risk (which I guess he had, but ... so what?).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com