Article text is also published here without paywall, but lacking the illustrations and interactive elements of the wsj version.

I wasn't defending Uber or suggesting they weren't negligent

Sure, it was facebook's stance that dev teams prioritise a fast development cycle over never breaking the flagship product in production - radical for a company that size. I said that usage was "way out of the context it was ever said genuinely" because Facebook motivational speeches about deprioritising the uptime of a website has nothing to do with a department of a different company who's developing driving software, NORAD certainly doesn't strike me as "move fast and break things" culture, Boeing's decision was clearly about training requirements, not moving fast, and even Facebook abandoned "move fast and break things".

It's possible the self-driving dev teams were following a "move fast and break things" mantra, but I doubt it, we have more mundane explanations like company structure and pressure at all company layers to demonstrate progress.

If you're using "move fast and break things" as a pithy description of aftermath of Silicon Valley companies, fine, but by repurposing a slogan for developers and saying "software folx" it came across as suggesting safety-critical development teams subscribe to this mantra and that's why there are problems.

(Not sure what the dig at Libra is about, I never paid much attention to Libra - surely it doesn't break anything that Bitcoin hasn't already?)

I don't think Boeing was software related, IIRC Boeing got rid of the failsafe because having it meant they couldn't sell the new model as not requiring pilots to receive extra training. That's not a decision the software departments got to make.

You're taking "move fast and break things" way out of the context it was ever said genuinely.

> I think this is what happens when socialization is dictated by people with CS degrees that never took psych 101.

Social networks initially worked well, and have changed society so much that I don't think psych 101 students from an era before they existed would have fared any better at predicting design outcomes. (and surely psych grads are used now)

But putting that asside, do you know of attempts to design social networks that won't cause harm? There's no anonymity on my Facebook feed for example, but it still seems to be doing bad things to many of my friends. Every social network seems to create its own unique kind of dysfunction - different for each platform.

You seem confident better social networks will happen, is anything happening now?