And yet, a police officer would be fully justified in ticketing you for going 1 mph above the speed limit. That's the point of a speed limit - removing ambiguity and limiting speed.
You only disagree with it because it's not well-enforced. Seeing other people get away with it sets a precedent for you to feel like it shouldn't be a rule. And the same would happen to Facebook if they paid him - eventually, the whitehat program's "technicalities" would become as pointless to enforce as a police officer ticketing someone for going "1 mph" over the speed limit. "Oh but it doesn't matter! It's just 1 mph!" If a speed limit designed to make a clear cut line doesn't work for you, how do you define rules? There's no objectivity to it at that point. It becomes a slippery slope.
Many people feel that small "technicalities" don't constitute real, ethical laws. This is wrong and an error in thinking. Every rule and every law is a restriction by technicality. Technically, you can go 65 mph, but not 66 mph. That's the line that delineates legality. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, it doesn't matter if you see other people do it, that's what it is.
But it is a rule, just like Facebook's Whitehat TOS. Agree with it or disagree with it, they don't care. You either follow all the rules, or you don't participate. That's the bottomline. They don't owe anyone money, they offer a bounty if you explicitly follow the rules and have proper discretion. It's really not complicated.
>Many people feel that small "technicalities" don't constitute real, ethical laws. This is wrong and an error in thinking. Every rule and every law is a restriction by technicality. Technically, you can go 65 mph, but not 66 mph. That's the line that delineates legality. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, it doesn't matter if you see other people do it, that's what it is.
I don't agree. We're not robots, we're people. There is room for flexibility. To quote Captain Picard from Startrek TNG...
"Jean-Luc Picard: I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible, but the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late and I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
You only disagree with it because it's not well-enforced. Seeing other people get away with it sets a precedent for you to feel like it shouldn't be a rule. And the same would happen to Facebook if they paid him - eventually, the whitehat program's "technicalities" would become as pointless to enforce as a police officer ticketing someone for going "1 mph" over the speed limit. "Oh but it doesn't matter! It's just 1 mph!" If a speed limit designed to make a clear cut line doesn't work for you, how do you define rules? There's no objectivity to it at that point. It becomes a slippery slope.
Many people feel that small "technicalities" don't constitute real, ethical laws. This is wrong and an error in thinking. Every rule and every law is a restriction by technicality. Technically, you can go 65 mph, but not 66 mph. That's the line that delineates legality. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, it doesn't matter if you see other people do it, that's what it is.
But it is a rule, just like Facebook's Whitehat TOS. Agree with it or disagree with it, they don't care. You either follow all the rules, or you don't participate. That's the bottomline. They don't owe anyone money, they offer a bounty if you explicitly follow the rules and have proper discretion. It's really not complicated.