5 ms·

Technology is not inherently neutral, and it’s time our industry collectively grows up and stops treating it as such. I hope this is a harbinger of that.

manigandham 8y ago
Yes it is. The basic definition of technology is applied science. It's as neutral as it gets. The morality and behavior come from the humans that use it.
- fcarraldo 8y ago
  What if the morality and behavior comes from the humans who apply it? Is applied applied science still as neutral as it gets?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    "Applied" in this context means turning theory into practice It doesn't refer to who's actually physically using the tech.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  Ten bucks says you work on something that has to do with adtech or free to play games.
  - dang 8y ago
    Would you please not get personal in arguments here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- palindromea 8y ago
  You don't understand science nor technology.
shittyadmin 8y ago
What do you think about Tor? Bittorrent? Bitcoin? How about things like IDA Pro? Many pretty amazing technologies have pretty destructive popular if not primary uses. I feel these tools are worth having on their own and it seems widely accepted at this point that the tools themselves aren't at fault for their user's actions, even if those actions are the most popular use of the tools. Personally I'm much more concerned about the ethical actions of internet advertisers and social media giants - those who are making direct ethical decisions that impact their users privacy and access to information.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  What about torture devices or biological weapons or even something like Cambridge Analytica's analysis products?
- rocqua 8y ago
  Your examples are technologies for decentralizing power. Those have very clear up and downsides (more freedom, but less enforcement). These technologies are to the detriment of enforcement. Because enforcement is far from a universal good, these technologies are far from a universal bad. Contrast this with faceswapping, where the upside is far less clear. Same goes for e.g. Stuxnet. It is a beautiful piece of technology, but not really a force for good given that it is widely available.
- beefhash 8y ago
  Tor, Bittorrent, Bitcoin and IDA Pro are all fascinating technology. Guns are also fascinating technology. The world has gun control, but not software control. I agree with your parent comment that we need to stop letting dangerous knowledge and (even worse) ready-to-use tools be spread openly. As far as I know, at least Hex-Rays screens customers very carefully before selling IDA Pro.
  - wedn3sday 8y ago
    The world very much DOES have software control. There are whole sets of countries that cannot use certain versions of SSL and other popular encryption tools because of software export controls. Yes, the governments of these places can still get access, but they can also buy weapons ect on the black market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography
darkpuma 8y ago
Tools are amoral, they can be used for moral or immoral purposes. Lock picks can be used by a burglar to harm people, or by a locksmith to help people. With a hammer, you can build an orphanage or hit orphans.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Tools some times have a clear (im)moral focus. If I make a tool to make fingernail extraction super painful to facilitate torture you're going to have a hard time spinning it is amoral. Now perhaps it doubles as a good drawing pin (aka thumbtack) extractor, but the tool has an immoral characteristic IMO because it was given it in the design and production stages. A bio-weapon delivery vessel might be a great essential oil diffuser, but I'd argue that the tool still has an essential immoral quality by virtue of its specialised design. Does that apply here? I don't think so, I don't think this tech was created for the purpose of fomenting unrest and committing frauds, but maybe I'll be corrected on that.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    If you use or threaten to use such a torture device on somebody, that would be immoral. Your use of it immoral, not the device itself. If you create this torture device and put it on display as a novelty, then it's not being used for anything immoral. So yes, even your hypothetical torture device is amoral. In fact, it's not so hypothetical. The vast majority of iron maidens ever created have only ever been used as novelties, not for torture.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Putting it on display isn’t using it.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      AIUI the iron maiden was created solely as a novelty. Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO. Worth noting here that a torture device works not only by physical application, but working on the mind as a possibility - just the presence of such a device, or awareness of such a device can create palpable fear. (Like brandishing a weapon, which is often illegal, is still effective, the weapon didn't have to be fired to be used.)
feanaro 8y ago
What good will come out of treating technology as a priori coloured as opposed to neutral? Which entity will get to decide what is neutral or not? How will it be prevented from abusing its position? It seems like an extremely bad idea to me.
greymeister 8y ago
I would argue that e-mail has been used via phishing and other (419 scam) tricks to swindle more people out of their money than other technologies. Clearly it is a dangerous tool that must be restricted to select users.

manigandham 8y ago

Yes it is. The basic definition of technology is applied science. It's as neutral as it gets. The morality and behavior come from the humans that use it.

fcarraldo 8y ago
What if the morality and behavior comes from the humans who apply it? Is applied applied science still as neutral as it gets?
- manigandham 8y ago
  "Applied" in this context means turning theory into practice It doesn't refer to who's actually physically using the tech.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
Ten bucks says you work on something that has to do with adtech or free to play games.
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please not get personal in arguments here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
palindromea 8y ago
You don't understand science nor technology.

shittyadmin 8y ago

What do you think about Tor? Bittorrent? Bitcoin? How about things like IDA Pro? Many pretty amazing technologies have pretty destructive popular if not primary uses. I feel these tools are worth having on their own and it seems widely accepted at this point that the tools themselves aren't at fault for their user's actions, even if those actions are the most popular use of the tools. Personally I'm much more concerned about the ethical actions of internet advertisers and social media giants - those who are making direct ethical decisions that impact their users privacy and access to information.

IshKebab 8y ago
What about torture devices or biological weapons or even something like Cambridge Analytica's analysis products?
rocqua 8y ago
Your examples are technologies for decentralizing power. Those have very clear up and downsides (more freedom, but less enforcement). These technologies are to the detriment of enforcement. Because enforcement is far from a universal good, these technologies are far from a universal bad. Contrast this with faceswapping, where the upside is far less clear. Same goes for e.g. Stuxnet. It is a beautiful piece of technology, but not really a force for good given that it is widely available.
beefhash 8y ago
Tor, Bittorrent, Bitcoin and IDA Pro are all fascinating technology. Guns are also fascinating technology. The world has gun control, but not software control. I agree with your parent comment that we need to stop letting dangerous knowledge and (even worse) ready-to-use tools be spread openly. As far as I know, at least Hex-Rays screens customers very carefully before selling IDA Pro.
- wedn3sday 8y ago
  The world very much DOES have software control. There are whole sets of countries that cannot use certain versions of SSL and other popular encryption tools because of software export controls. Yes, the governments of these places can still get access, but they can also buy weapons ect on the black market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography

darkpuma 8y ago

Tools are amoral, they can be used for moral or immoral purposes. Lock picks can be used by a burglar to harm people, or by a locksmith to help people. With a hammer, you can build an orphanage or hit orphans.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Tools some times have a clear (im)moral focus. If I make a tool to make fingernail extraction super painful to facilitate torture you're going to have a hard time spinning it is amoral. Now perhaps it doubles as a good drawing pin (aka thumbtack) extractor, but the tool has an immoral characteristic IMO because it was given it in the design and production stages. A bio-weapon delivery vessel might be a great essential oil diffuser, but I'd argue that the tool still has an essential immoral quality by virtue of its specialised design. Does that apply here? I don't think so, I don't think this tech was created for the purpose of fomenting unrest and committing frauds, but maybe I'll be corrected on that.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  If you use or threaten to use such a torture device on somebody, that would be immoral. Your use of it immoral, not the device itself. If you create this torture device and put it on display as a novelty, then it's not being used for anything immoral. So yes, even your hypothetical torture device is amoral. In fact, it's not so hypothetical. The vast majority of iron maidens ever created have only ever been used as novelties, not for torture.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Putting it on display isn’t using it.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    AIUI the iron maiden was created solely as a novelty. Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO. Worth noting here that a torture device works not only by physical application, but working on the mind as a possibility - just the presence of such a device, or awareness of such a device can create palpable fear. (Like brandishing a weapon, which is often illegal, is still effective, the weapon didn't have to be fired to be used.)

feanaro 8y ago

What good will come out of treating technology as a priori coloured as opposed to neutral? Which entity will get to decide what is neutral or not? How will it be prevented from abusing its position? It seems like an extremely bad idea to me.

greymeister 8y ago

I would argue that e-mail has been used via phishing and other (419 scam) tricks to swindle more people out of their money than other technologies. Clearly it is a dangerous tool that must be restricted to select users.