If they're like wayyyy out of what I deem to be understandable, I'll be outraged, but I don't know if I consider this company to be that far over my line (for t

If they're like wayyyy out of what I deem to be understandable, I'll be outraged, but I don't know if I consider this company to be that far over my line (for the reasons I stated). If I considered this company to be over the line, what would I think about the leagues of developers who write essentially surveillance software (and somethings actually surveillance software) for the internet? Also, I think the way of thinking you're referring to is called universalism (roughly stated - "do a thing only if you're OK with everyone doing that thing"), but I think it has it's problems. > Yes, it is your decision, but it is not simply a decision of "do I whichever I want in the moment." It is ("do I want to do this & "would I be okay with someone doing this to me). (That's a bitwise AND there) Yeah that's basically integrity (at least the consistency part) though -- I don't agree with the example I gave (it's pretty devil's advocate-y and obviously against the mores of the HN crowd), but I don't know that I can call someone who draws the line a few steps away from where I might have drawn it "sleazy", especially when there are people out there that do way worse things in hidden places.