Presently, and almost assuredly in the future, technology is going to continue to disrupt society in varied ways. It can amount of progress, in fact it tends to. However, there can be destruction, or worse, decay.
A recent story about a female pet watcher who a couple hired through a software program might be topical. The pet watcher had “210 five star reviews” pursuant to satisfactory performance with previous customers. Though some details are missing from the story, it does sound as if a fairly high wage was being paid for her dog walking services.
What happened is the pet sitter got naked in the home of the clients, on a camera that, according to the story, she knew was there. The pet sitter also had a sexual partner with her on premises. Further, the first news included statements that she behaved disrespectfully toward the pet she was being paid to look after.
Ultimately, my tendency is to side with the informal employer in this situation (it does not sound like she was offering a raw deal in any way). The services provided–though the term services might be generous–were damaging. Aside from an unfortunate injury to the pet, the harm would be emotional; probably not financial or economic. The entire matter has been broadcast, on networks around the world.
Maybe in the future, companies that look to use software to enrich digital entrepreneurs will need to be responsible for poor standards or misbehavior. Such enterprises are only going to continue proliferating in the near future. Unfortunately, part of their business model usually involves the elimination of accountable staff. They frequently endeavor to replace persons with technology that costs less and provides equivalent service.
A follow-up to the original headline describes cruelty to an animal. Unfortunately, this might not be so surprising. Some businesses pay little heed humanistic pursuits, which is especially probable if their product is mostly a technology. In fact, a different headline from earlier this year describes a separate instance of harm to a pet, and the same company “Offered…a $369 refund and $100 of…credit in what the couple believes was a letter meant to silence them.”
A law suit against the pet sitting firm could be topical. If not that, there could be a bigger opportunity for the media. Attention that highlights the disconnect between humane needs and technology-driven profit may be deserved. With attention, future enterprises may emphasize their competence, and accountability, in a way that is helpful to both consumers and society.
There are multiple issues. Though technology can help to advance us, there are instances in which everyone is worse off. Compensation for the offensiveness, and attention to it, might help to better-shape our future.
A recent story about a female pet watcher who a couple hired through a software program might be topical. The pet watcher had “210 five star reviews” pursuant to satisfactory performance with previous customers. Though some details are missing from the story, it does sound as if a fairly high wage was being paid for her dog walking services.
What happened is the pet sitter got naked in the home of the clients, on a camera that, according to the story, she knew was there. The pet sitter also had a sexual partner with her on premises. Further, the first news included statements that she behaved disrespectfully toward the pet she was being paid to look after.
Ultimately, my tendency is to side with the informal employer in this situation (it does not sound like she was offering a raw deal in any way). The services provided–though the term services might be generous–were damaging. Aside from an unfortunate injury to the pet, the harm would be emotional; probably not financial or economic. The entire matter has been broadcast, on networks around the world.
Maybe in the future, companies that look to use software to enrich digital entrepreneurs will need to be responsible for poor standards or misbehavior. Such enterprises are only going to continue proliferating in the near future. Unfortunately, part of their business model usually involves the elimination of accountable staff. They frequently endeavor to replace persons with technology that costs less and provides equivalent service.
A follow-up to the original headline describes cruelty to an animal. Unfortunately, this might not be so surprising. Some businesses pay little heed humanistic pursuits, which is especially probable if their product is mostly a technology. In fact, a different headline from earlier this year describes a separate instance of harm to a pet, and the same company “Offered…a $369 refund and $100 of…credit in what the couple believes was a letter meant to silence them.”
A law suit against the pet sitting firm could be topical. If not that, there could be a bigger opportunity for the media. Attention that highlights the disconnect between humane needs and technology-driven profit may be deserved. With attention, future enterprises may emphasize their competence, and accountability, in a way that is helpful to both consumers and society.
There are multiple issues. Though technology can help to advance us, there are instances in which everyone is worse off. Compensation for the offensiveness, and attention to it, might help to better-shape our future.