4 ms·

No, I’m saying that there isn’t an immediate answer to any of these questions and companies need to evaluate it themselves when deciding. The country’s own leg

No, I’m saying that there isn’t an immediate answer to any of these questions and companies need to evaluate it themselves when deciding. The country’s own legal framework isn’t enough to decide for you. I think your moral relativism is lame, both here and in your other comments. It might feel good to offload that responsibility, but if you do, and you operate in a country that has problematic laws, then your self-assured relativism can get others killed.

threatofrain 6y ago
You're basically saying that different nations can't develop their own moral and legal conversations fast enough, and thus an international intelligentsia needs to pick up the slack; a bit of noblesse oblige. Not a very reliable mechanism, and kind of a story of a ticking time bomb.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'm saying that we all have responsibility for the software we put out into the world, and we're complicit in how it's used. It's wrong to offload that ethical responsibility entirely to others. Things get better because we want them to be better, as people that build these things we have to care.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Surely it doesn’t come as a surprise to you that there exist in this world who no only don’t think like you... There are people in this world who are happy to write cigs than can be weaponised against those they disagree with. So in that sense, I’d suggest you’re wrong. Software Developers are not a homogeneous while who do or should think like you. Whether or not we agree that way of being is reprehensible is a different matter, in which I tend to agree it is.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Sure - there are people that don't agree with me (often a lot of people). I think we actually agree more than we disagree on this. If people are doing what they think is ethical and they really think it's the right thing then at least that's consistent. I might not agree - I might think it's terrible even, but there's genuine disagreement there and genuine discussion can be had about it (assuming discussion is still allowed). What I'm arguing against is more about the people that know better, or are doing something that's in direct conflict with what they believe to be right. They rationalize it by off-loading that ethical responsibility to others (things like the legal framework of the country they're operating in, it's not my place to determine policy, etc.). They tell themselves their mere presence is helpful, or that if it wasn't them it'd be someone else who doesn't care as much as they do. They structure something like this in their mind for the purpose of being able to hold these contradictory opinions that enable them to do something they think is wrong. That's mostly what I'm fighting against. It's one thing to argue that censorship of citizens is a good idea (I obviously disagree), but at least that's a real position. These other ones are mostly rationalized bullshit. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing, but it also triumphs when good people do evil things while telling themselves it's okay.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
        Yep, ok, gotcha. Thanks for the conversation and your comprehensive responses.
    - moksly 6y ago
      We have international human rights, we could enforce companies to follow those guidelines everywhere if they want to do business on our own countries. Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in. The US isn’t alone in this of course, but it’s where the majority of international human rights infringement companies reside.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
        Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind... Yeah, it’s only as good as the local laws and their enforcement. Something to strive for though.
        humanrebar 6y ago
        Human rights don't need enforcement to exist. Part of the point of clarifying rights is clarifying wrongs when that happens. In other words, rights come from human dignity and inherent value. They do not spring into being by fiat from rulers and politicians.
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        > Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in Big ol' citation needed.
lukevdp 6y ago
The choice for companies is to either follow a country’s laws, or not operate in that country. It’s not moral relativism, it’s just business.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  I’ve been spouting the same rhetoric, but it isn’t strictly true. It shouldn’t be difficult to recall at least a handful of recently examples in the US. Uber and Apple come to mind.
- christophilus 6y ago
  Kind of like when IBM sold counting machines to the Nazis so they could better track how many Jews they were gassing. Just business.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
There is an immediate answer: comply with local laws. If you don’t like them then lobby to change them.

threatofrain 6y ago

You're basically saying that different nations can't develop their own moral and legal conversations fast enough, and thus an international intelligentsia needs to pick up the slack; a bit of noblesse oblige. Not a very reliable mechanism, and kind of a story of a ticking time bomb.

fossuser 6y ago
I'm saying that we all have responsibility for the software we put out into the world, and we're complicit in how it's used. It's wrong to offload that ethical responsibility entirely to others. Things get better because we want them to be better, as people that build these things we have to care.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Surely it doesn’t come as a surprise to you that there exist in this world who no only don’t think like you... There are people in this world who are happy to write cigs than can be weaponised against those they disagree with. So in that sense, I’d suggest you’re wrong. Software Developers are not a homogeneous while who do or should think like you. Whether or not we agree that way of being is reprehensible is a different matter, in which I tend to agree it is.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Sure - there are people that don't agree with me (often a lot of people). I think we actually agree more than we disagree on this. If people are doing what they think is ethical and they really think it's the right thing then at least that's consistent. I might not agree - I might think it's terrible even, but there's genuine disagreement there and genuine discussion can be had about it (assuming discussion is still allowed). What I'm arguing against is more about the people that know better, or are doing something that's in direct conflict with what they believe to be right. They rationalize it by off-loading that ethical responsibility to others (things like the legal framework of the country they're operating in, it's not my place to determine policy, etc.). They tell themselves their mere presence is helpful, or that if it wasn't them it'd be someone else who doesn't care as much as they do. They structure something like this in their mind for the purpose of being able to hold these contradictory opinions that enable them to do something they think is wrong. That's mostly what I'm fighting against. It's one thing to argue that censorship of citizens is a good idea (I obviously disagree), but at least that's a real position. These other ones are mostly rationalized bullshit. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing, but it also triumphs when good people do evil things while telling themselves it's okay.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      Yep, ok, gotcha. Thanks for the conversation and your comprehensive responses.
  - moksly 6y ago
    We have international human rights, we could enforce companies to follow those guidelines everywhere if they want to do business on our own countries. Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in. The US isn’t alone in this of course, but it’s where the majority of international human rights infringement companies reside.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind... Yeah, it’s only as good as the local laws and their enforcement. Something to strive for though.
      - humanrebar 6y ago
        Human rights don't need enforcement to exist. Part of the point of clarifying rights is clarifying wrongs when that happens. In other words, rights come from human dignity and inherent value. They do not spring into being by fiat from rulers and politicians.
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      > Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in Big ol' citation needed.

lukevdp 6y ago

The choice for companies is to either follow a country’s laws, or not operate in that country. It’s not moral relativism, it’s just business.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
I’ve been spouting the same rhetoric, but it isn’t strictly true. It shouldn’t be difficult to recall at least a handful of recently examples in the US. Uber and Apple come to mind.
christophilus 6y ago
Kind of like when IBM sold counting machines to the Nazis so they could better track how many Jews they were gassing. Just business.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

There is an immediate answer: comply with local laws. If you don’t like them then lobby to change them.