I&#x27;d like to add a perspective to the posts questioning the &quot;power law&quot; and it&#x27;s consequences in this area.<p>&quot;Gesinnungs Ethik&quot; VS &quot;Verantwortungs-Ethik&quot;
(very roughly &#x27;unquestioned attitude&#x27; vs &#x27;accountability&#x27; Ethics)<p>for me this blog-post is a fine example of technocratic &quot;Gesinnungs Ethik&quot;: the power law is a law of nature, the popular get (easier) more popular, the rich get (easier) richer... that&#x27;s by law of nature, you can, actually you _have_ to submit to it otherwise your efforts are wasted. That&#x27;s the way it is. (Other examples are: the market, the rational agent, management principles etc)<p>Sure, there are processes in nature following the power laws where it is really futile for us humans to intervene or ignore it.<p>AND<p>there are other areas where this presented futility most probably is NOT true.<p>That&#x27;s where &quot;Verantwortungs-Ethik&quot; comes into play, yes an &quot;antagonist&quot; to the other one: do we want accept the consequences of following&#x2F;applying this law? Is this driving the development of an area into the right direction? If you are accountable for the large scale consequences f.e., would you follow this law? It&#x27;s a less passive, &quot;well, that&#x27;s the way things are&quot;, attitude and a more conscious and active attitude, where putting out a lot of posts just in case and for the sake of the one lucky viral attention-grab in a &quot;big data experiment&quot; manner is not ignoring the overall effect on the whole, where there is accountability for collateral damage.<p>It does not make sense to apply &quot;Verantwortungs-Ethik&quot; to gravity laws. ;) In most social contexts, and in contexts we ourselves construct, we are free to do so. And I think, we should more intensively.