Well we ARE social creatures as a species since it's been the only reason we had been able to achieve what we did, be where we are and more simply survive.
So even if some of us don't like the idea of being around others it's a fact that it served us well to be able to collaborate in such extensive ways.
As said in others answers, there will be multiple annotations sources so each one will have it's own moderation to do and users will have the choice to subscribe to any or all of them.
Therefore the moderation will not have anything to do with the content owner. It's comparable to reddit or HN : would you complain that content owner have no control over discussion about their content on those sites ?
I guess you'll have to choose wisely your annotations sources... If you see too much spam on 1 source, just unsubscribe. As said earlier, it's not so different of reddit/HN discuussions abouut content. The publisher may not even be aware of the discussion.
Not sure about them in particular but usually those initiatives also glorify open standards and the fact that even if the company disapear in 10 years, they will allow you to walk away with all your data in standard formats allowing you to continue your journey with another provider that uses this standard. Which is not obvious with some major companies using their own data models. (although I've heard of some bankrupting companies that made efforts to let users backup their datas before the end).
I think this is different between companies but not in the way you are suggesting.
For example, concerning the subject we are discussing in the first place, Tesla because of the specificity of their cars probably have to produce themselves a huge part of the components of the car whereas Ford, Volkswagen,... are now to a point where a huge amount of the parts of their car are similar and can be outsourced to contractors that will decrease costs by producing only one type of components in huge quantity and provides to multiple constructors (who looks more and more like assemblers nowadays).
So I agree that it is in fact not easy to compare manufacturers on this metrics but I would believe that it's actually suggesting that Tesla does a lot more in-house than conventional car manufacturers.
I understand you and again it will be something to have in mind during design of said cars but I don't think this will be a huge problem.
Even if the problem exists in the early days, I'm pretty sure this is the kind of things that can be dealt with easily later. Those car are already capable of evaluating dangerous situations for others and I don't think that's unreasonable to believe that they will adapt their comportment to conditions and even in some special cases allow for risks taking if it only concerns the one that chose so.
And don't forget that we don't speak about only one company. There will be concurrence as it exists today and if some constructors are so limiting in the behavior of their cars that people die in it when conditions would have allowed to save them otherwise then soon enough someone will come with a car that can deal with that situation and so forth.
Wow! That's exactly what I said earlier, you are convinced that a good driver (one with proper training or whatever heuristics are) will be able to avoid those crashes.
And in my opinion the only reason that can make you believe that is that there is, fortunately, few enough car crashes that you think those who had never crashed avoided it because of their skills.
Of course skills and training will allow you to behave well in a lots of situations that could have killed you otherwise but my conviction is that if you go through life without a big accident, a huge part of it is due to luck. Luck that you didn't encounter the situation in which training and skills couldn't have saved you.
I'm not sure about this... Do you have sources on that ?
I'm pretty sure that on contrary, autonomous car constructors are actually testing their cars in the worst possible conditions even some that are unlikely to ever happen to anyone. At least it's what Google is telling about their test process.
Well you can say it would be infuriating to be unable to take risks to save let's say your wife dying in the car but you can't argue that it's a GOOD thing to take those risks... who are you to decide that it is worth risking others lives to try to save one ?
Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will cause a terrible accident is a big problem.
It's probably why so much people keep resisting evolution like autopilot, they can't admit that even them can someday fail and crash. They believe that if they are good drivers they will avoid it.
Sadly very good drivers die every day and not only because of someone else's mistake.
Of course a computer or a machine can fail too, but in comparison it will never fail as often as human do. Because we can be careless, sleepy, drunk, unskilled,...
Now the real problem we will face (what scares me even though I'm pro-autopilot) is to accept to hand our lives to machines that will have to make choices in emergency situations (should it saves its owner or the kids in front of it ?, who is responsible in case of a crash ?,...)
I don't know if I get that right but from where I come, "watch the news" means mostly watch it on TV. So it might not have something to do with reading IT news on HN for example...
It's complicated to just do something you were not supposed to and then go with: "look I know I had to do that but instead I did that so please give me [amount you never aggreed to pay]".
What he could have done on the other hand is: inform the client of the attack and propose him to get rid of it for a certain fee...