Currently, online slander and defamation have become a major issue following the suicide of Hana Kimura, who appeared on Terrace House. It's a very, truly sad problem, but we, as service creators, must confront these issues head-on.

What we, as service developers, must confront is that this incident occurred precisely because IT-related platforms such as social networking services like X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, blogs, and search engines existed. If IT-related services hadn't existed, an incident like this might not have happened.

That's not to say we should stop creating IT services and platforms; rather, we must consider services ethically. For example, we need to imagine what negative impacts or tragedies could arise if we create a certain service, and then devise strategies to prevent its misuse.

We don't need convenience that causes people to suffer behind its facade.

I forget who said it, but some influencer once said something like, 'Ethics are not necessary when creating new services. Eventually, what was once considered wrong ethics will become right if enough people adopt it.' This is absolutely incorrect. In the future society, mechanisms that harm people or have negative impacts are inherently flawed and will be criticized.

Just because something is convenient, if it's a system that could take someone's life, then we have to find a way to solve it. If convenience comes at the cost of someone's life, then such convenience shouldn't exist.

For example, I often share this on X (formerly Twitter), but the developer who created X (formerly Twitter)'s 'retweet' feature deeply regrets it. The developer, Mr. Wetherell, when he created the retweet function, the developers primarily saw only the good aspects. They only focused on how retweets would make the world more convenient, and failed to imagine how it could be misused.

The man who created X (formerly Twitter)'s retweet regrets it.
https://www.gizmodo.jp/2019/07/tweet-retweet.html

As a result, numerous fake news stories were spread, it became a hotbed for attacking women, a cause of bullying, and many negative aspects emerged. This is somewhat like an atomic bomb (though it might be a misnomer to compare them directly); it's as if a terrible weapon of destruction was born simultaneously with the birth of atomic energy. The only difference is that the weapon became 'information'.

Therefore, while we pursue convenience, we must constantly confront and consider whether it is ethically sound, and whether it could be used negatively to take someone's life or ruin their future.

Even X (formerly Twitter) has been a hotbed for bullying and negative activities in the past, so it should implement measures like age restrictions and countermeasures against defamation. It's certainly possible. For defamation countermeasures, you can extract suspicious phrases by combining words like 'die' with people's names. When sending DMs, it would have been better to have a system that could freeze or review accounts that sent such DMs.

Those who create services must constantly consider the potential for harm that could arise from the worst possible misuse, even while creating convenience. They must think about the ethics and mechanisms of services to prevent their worst misuse, and continuously improve them.

If there are people suffering behind the scenes as the world becomes more convenient, then I believe such services should cease to exist.These words themselves are a quote from the manga 'Ōsama-tachi no Viking' (Kings' Viking). I completely agree.

From now on,STARTOUTandWAREHOUSEI think many people will emerge who create businesses and services using what they have learned. In such a situation, if the service you create yourself could hurt someone, take a life, or be used for bad things, please think to the very end about how you can stop that negative use. I believe that is one of the most important responsibilities of people who make the world more convenient and become wealthy themselves.

By the way, if you are slandered or defamed, I think it's better to legally pursue them without mercy.

Regarding those who engage in slander and defamation, I think many people wonder, 'What do they mean by that?' But most of them don't say it with any significant intention.

Certainly, some people might engage in slander and defamation with the intention of hurting others. However, the vast majority of slander and defamation is uttered with the same casual feeling as gossiping with friends at a cafe. In short, they can't even imagine that there are people who get hurt by seeing such posts.

Therefore, since these actions are carried out with unconscious malice, the person themselves might not even remember what they said. So, I think people around them should tell them, 'You should stop such behavior. It remains once posted in writing, it can be seen, and it's a crime.'

Also,If you are slandered or defamed, you should consult a lawyer thoroughly and pursue them without mercy.At the very least, if you do nothing, nothing will change. That's for sure. How many times have such incidents occurred with the platitude of 'let's break the chain of negativity'? It's time to take action. If I were to receive slander or defamation, I would definitely do so. For now, I'm not famous enough to receive such slander, so it hasn't happened yet. But even anonymously, you can identify the other party now. You definitely can. Even I can imagine the methods.

Furthermore, I even think that I could have written code to acquire slander and defamation, collect it piece by piece, and immediately send the accounts that appeared there to a lawyer.

By the way, it seems some people said it's not a problem because it's 'feedback on the program,' but even feedback can become a weapon depending on how it's expressed. Even feedback and opinions, if expressed in words that extremely hurt the other person, can be a crime.

If an opinion is an act that extremely hurts the other person's psyche, it can become a weapon depending on the manner of expression. The words directed at Hana Kimura this time would not have led to this if they had been rephrased and said gently. In the end, it's a matter of expression, and whether it's an opinion or not is irrelevant.

By the way, the standard for slander and defamation is'Would I be hurt if hundreds of thousands of people threw those words at me?'I think. If there's a possibility of being hurt or getting sick, then you shouldn't say it to others. You say it because you can't imagine what kind of pain it will cause, right?

When you say that, some people might say, 'I wouldn't be hurt,' but in such cases,You could take an X (formerly Twitter) poll and decide with a 'hurt' or 'not hurt' binary choice.might be good. There might be opinions that say it could be used for censorship, but normally, differences in values can't be resolved through debate, so I think it's good to decide by majority vote. Simply put.

Bad things are bad, so let's have the people around us teach them. It's fine to express opinions, but there's a way to say them. Such behavior might be manageable with the small efforts of each individual on social media right now.