@ekaitz_zarraga @kameleonidas @aral go back to the very first post and tou will see that, it appears from his wording, that Aral ^does* believe #2.

@ekaitz_zarraga @kameleonidas @aral in aral’s view, it is not a company that asks a developer to make intrusive software. no, developers do this because they are bad.

@zensaiyuki @ekaitz_zarraga @kameleonidas Aral might be able to articulate his view a little better, perhaps ;)

My view is (a) unethical companies ask developers to make unethical software (b) unethical developers say yes (c) ethical developers say no.

@aral @zensaiyuki @ekaitz_zarraga

Counterpoints:

(1) Things are not so black and white. Reality does not consist of a series of booleans and enums. Tradeoffs exist and context matters.

(2) Some software has unethical aspects to it, but that does not necessarily make it unethical as a whole.

(3) A company asking developers to build unethical software (components) is not necessarily unethical.

(4) Unethical components may be required by law.

@kameleonidas @aral @zensaiyuki
1) Yeah, and the point is?
2) Yes it does
3) It is
4) Yes, by unethical laws

Follow

@ekaitz_zarraga @aral @zensaiyuki

1) That speaking in absolutes is nice for social media posturing but rather limited in the search for practical solutions.

2 & 3) Are you really going to start a "Yes! No!" battle?

4) I know, I know, it rarely ever happens in practice that laws are unethical, it's just a corner case. /s

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Assorted Paupers

Private instance, sign ups closed.