3 ms·

I think that the point is McDonalds doesn't empower $villain to do $badstuff (that is, unless he is literally starving - in which case it would be inhumane to n

I think that the point is McDonalds doesn't empower $villain to do $badstuff (that is, unless he is literally starving - in which case it would be inhumane to not give him food). However, technology empowers us to do things that would not be possible without it. Sometimes, a company can not choose who uses their tools - e.g. if it is open source, you can hardly prevent $villain from using it. This is similar to a hammer: If $villain buys a hammer at a hardware store, the hardware store is not to blame if $villain smites people (unless maybe $villain is known to be villainous, but that's not the point right now). On the other hand, if a known $villain comes to you, and asks you to help him commit $atrocities: You can make the decision not to help. (So, to put it short: I think your analogy is bad).

ajhurliman 7y ago
I think the analogy still stands if the goods/service is a commodity. It's not like $evil_corp will just forego using version control if GitLab doesn't offer it; there are tons of version control offerings. The interesting spot is where you're selling off-the-shelf goods/ services that nobody else can provide. I would say that it's morally wrong to provide those services in that case since it's directly attributable to you that $villain did $bad_thing because of your offering, even though you had little personal involvement in the interaction.
- archi42 7y ago
  So if $villain goes to the hardware store, says he needs a good hammer since $villain is feeling like hitting $someone with it - then the hardware store should sell a hammer? After all, $villain may go to the competing hardware store and get a hammer there, or even build his own hammer.
  - LeonB 7y ago
    If $villain has outright said he’s going to do that with it, then the $salesperson might still sell the $hammer if their personal safety is endangered. But they should also notify the $police so that $someone can be warned and $villain can be apprehended. I think this $scenario is outside the $effective area of the $metaphor.
  - afiori 7y ago
    Here the metaphor breakdown for a very simple reason: crimes are crimes and not crimes are not crimes. the villain part is irrelevant. If $hero/heroine wants to buy an hammer to smite $villain, the hardware store is in the same situation: protect your safety and call the police.

ajhurliman 7y ago

I think the analogy still stands if the goods/service is a commodity. It's not like $evil_corp will just forego using version control if GitLab doesn't offer it; there are tons of version control offerings. The interesting spot is where you're selling off-the-shelf goods/ services that nobody else can provide. I would say that it's morally wrong to provide those services in that case since it's directly attributable to you that $villain did $bad_thing because of your offering, even though you had little personal involvement in the interaction.

archi42 7y ago
So if $villain goes to the hardware store, says he needs a good hammer since $villain is feeling like hitting $someone with it - then the hardware store should sell a hammer? After all, $villain may go to the competing hardware store and get a hammer there, or even build his own hammer.
- LeonB 7y ago
  If $villain has outright said he’s going to do that with it, then the $salesperson might still sell the $hammer if their personal safety is endangered. But they should also notify the $police so that $someone can be warned and $villain can be apprehended. I think this $scenario is outside the $effective area of the $metaphor.
- afiori 7y ago
  Here the metaphor breakdown for a very simple reason: crimes are crimes and not crimes are not crimes. the villain part is irrelevant. If $hero/heroine wants to buy an hammer to smite $villain, the hardware store is in the same situation: protect your safety and call the police.