Hacker News Reader

Comment by InsideOutSanta | Hacker News Reader

"Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink"

I didn't say there was, and this isn't about Musk. I'm just using Starlink as an example, my point is not about Starlink.

"I don't see how that is polluting"

Starlink satellites create light pollution and disrupt radio frequencies. Astronomers are already running into issues with research due to the light from Starlink satellites. There's also the issue of reentry. We now have a Starlink reentry almost every single day, which is at least damaging to the ozone layer, and very likely causing other issues.

But like I said, this is not about Starlink. It's just an example to illustrate accountability sinks having both positive and negative effects.

View on HN

I don't think it works at all, no.

There's no accountability sink to speak of here. "Accountability sink" in the article's meaning means that accountability got obscured, something bad happened (eg, lies on TV, terrible customer service), yet nobody can be clearly blamed for giving the order.

Here, it's Musk's invention, and he's clearly to blame for it. In fact Musk has a propensity to take more credit than he deserves, so it's almost the opposite from a sink really.

Musk is not accountable for Starlink. Starlink is an LLC, a limited liability company. There is no single person who is accountable for Starlink's satellites.

The chief difference here is that you can plausibly point at every investor in Starlink and say if they have the slightest idea of Starlink's business plan, they know that causes light pollution. There is exactly one degree of separation from putting satellites in the sky to causing light pollution. There's no plausible deniability there.

This article is more about the phenomenon where decisions are removed by multiple degrees. The locus of decision making is either obscured or non-existent, creating plausible deniability. This is often done by rewarding activities that don't obviously create harm but nevertheless require causing harm to carry out.

But that is how it works, isn't it? They're saying, "we want to make the Internet available to as many people as possible." They don't want the light pollution, and they don't create the light pollution.

It's analogous to the Fox example in the article, where somebody at the top says, "we want high viewership." They don't want their employees to lie to their audience, and they don't force them to lie to their audience.

Does the Fox leadership at some point become aware that "lying to the audience" is a result of their performance goals, just like the decision makers at Starlink become aware that light pollution is a result of their goals? They very likely do. Does that make them feel accountable for the negative side effects? Probably not, because they didn't tell anyone to lie and pollute the skies, somebody else did that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com