I don't like this take, companies use this same mentality to justify inaction with their impact on climate change.
Who decides what a "severe" outcome is? The companies themselves? Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?
Who decides what a "severe" outcome is? The companies themselves? Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?
It's similar with climate change. It's just a fact of the matter that people at scale only react as actual consequences become palpable.
1% of users in a data leak having their identities stolen or 1% of the cities in the world becoming uninhabitable due to heat isn't enough to demand action, what about 10%? Is 25% where we draw the line?
but this is the correct justification. If the customer is the one buying these products that cause climate impact, why is it the sole responsibility of the company to pay the cost of rectification?
In such situations, where externality is problematic, it is up to the gov't to push regulations to prevent it. A carbon capture tax, for example, is one such way.
> Why don't we hold them to a higher standard?
why should companies be held to a higher standard than a person?
It isn't - it's the company's responsibility to pass the cost to the customer.
That's what imposing a 'severe' outcome would mean. You're using circular logic to be against a statement of facts.
a) everyone is impacted by climate change, not just the customers who gave their data
b) climate change has very real consequences for people
Read up on the SSN leak from last week, I didn't give them my data. And it can have real consequences.