5 ms·

I don't want Autodesk to become political, they provide a tool, not a (political) ideology. I'm sure Autodesk products have been used to design bombs, weapons,

by bArray 6y ago

I don't want Autodesk to become political, they provide a tool, not a (political) ideology. I'm sure Autodesk products have been used to design bombs, weapons, great polluting machines and what not - but it has also been used for some truly inspiring stuff. Autodesk is like a hammer, it's not the hammer manufacturer's fault in how their product is used. Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? The dangerous part is, we already see essential services such as payment processors taking political stances (blacklisting customers based on their political beliefs). Autodesk's PR response is awful, to be completely honest if they were going to go down this route, they should have just remained quite. Their real mistake was to have a commitment to environmental impact. It could have been re-worded to have a green company infrastructure and to actively support green projects with tools and grants. We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow.

doctorhandshake 6y ago
This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my friend's skull in'. Would you sell it to them?
- troydavis 6y ago
  > This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my friend's skull in'. This is called a "Faulty analogy" or "False analogy": https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.h..., https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit... In this case, you've equated two things because they can both cause some amount of harm, but have ignored the quantity of harm, the existence and quantity of positive benefits, and the presence of stated intent.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    The point is that all the good of Autodesk's products in non-mining industries is great but when a company like someone who makes mining equipment comes along Autodesk should treat them as they're someone who says they're going to use the software to bash their friend's planet in.
  - gramstrong 6y ago
    No it's not. doctorhandshake wasn't even making an analogy. They were applying OP's rule (we shouldn't dictate business based on political beliefs) to a hypothetical in order to demonstrate its negative moral outcome.
  - thomaslord 6y ago
    > quantity of harm It's very possible (I'd argue probable) that operating a single, large-scale coal mining operation causes more total harm than bashing a single person's skull in with a hammer. > existence and quantity of positive benefits Coal as an industry is unnecessary at the scale it exists at today, so any added efficiencies in that industry due to the use of Autodesk products most likely count as a harm rather than a positive benefit. > presence of stated intent From the press releases on the page linked by the OP, it seems that Autodesk is well aware of the activities of the coal companies using their software, to the point that they use it as a selling point for their products. Perhaps the first moment they began selling to those companies they were unaware, but at this point they have explicitly advertised to the public that they know what those companies are doing. * Edited to fix line breaks
- ignoramceisblis 6y ago
  If Autodesk had not profited from sales to these types of people, would they be in a position--or even exist--to provide their helpful technology for more noble efforts?
adamsea 6y ago
> Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? Sorry for the extreme example. Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. The question is where and how to draw that line, and, the process we currently use to do that is public discussion, civil society, and democratic government. So I think it's perfectly appropriate to talk and think about this.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of what I see the OP advocating for. > Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. Who is this "we"?
  - bArray 6y ago
    > That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through > commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of > what I see the OP advocating for. Exactly. There is a major difference between neutrality and support. But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. > Who is this "we"? Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. I agree, though I'm not sure I have good words to describe an operating principle that would allow one to sell a hammer to an coal company but would allow one to deny a hammer to someone declaring their intent to commit assault with it. You could say something like "I will sell to anyone for any lawful purpose", but then you get into questions like "what about lawful behavior that I consider to be a grave wrong?". The devil is in the details. In general, I think the solution is free association. The problem I see is that there are some very cynical third parties out there attacking their ideological foes at an economic level, by using social manipulation to direct other people's free associations in a coordinated manner to push those foes out of normal economic life altogether. I say these third parties are cynical, because if Autodesk did stop working with the coal industry these third parties would defend Autodesk's right to "free association" in that choice, but those same third parties would happily use force of law to ban Autodesk from doing business with the coal industry if they could. >> Who is this "we"? > Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on. This pretense of consensus is one such rhetorical device of the social manipulators.
wcerfgba 6y ago
I think manufacturer responsibility is a function of both the purpose/use of the product and their removal from the particular nefarious uses. For example, if a company makes nuts and bolts, it is true that they can be used to make bombs or oil rigs, but they are also used to make hairdryers and ovens and many other things. Additionally, nut and bolt manufacturers usually do not sell directly to the end users of their products, they sell through a long supply chain. If a supplier sells nuts and bolts to an oil company or arms manufacturer, that supplier is more responsible than the bolt manufacturer because they are the final step in selling to the business of dispute. If the company makes nuts and bolts which are only useful for making bombs, then the manufacturer responsibility increases because they know what their product is going to be used for. Basically, if you can answer the question "what is this product going to be used for?" before you distribute it, you inherit responsibility for that use, because you could have chosen not to have distributed it, and therefore prevented that use of the product. In the case of Autodesk, their products have a wide variety of uses, but they supply directly to their customers, so they know who they are selling to and therefore what each particular license will be used for, and therefore they incur some responsibility.
- lliamander 6y ago
  Assuming that Autodesk refusing to do business with the coal industry has any effect, the only immediate effect would likely be an increase in energy costs, which would disproportionately affect the poor. Whether it would actually result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions seems more questionable to me.
  - esrauch 6y ago
    If it affected coal energy prices it would make the relative price of other sources more competitive, wouldn't it?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      Making "green"[1] energy more competitive is not the same thing as making it cheaper. Yes, providers my switch to more green energy if the cost differential is not as great, but that doesn't mean that the consumer sees any real benefit. For the consumer not to be impacted, the critical step would be for the actual cost of "green" energy to go down. This is done by allowing coal and "green" energy to compete in a relatively unregulated manner[2]. [1]Scare quotes are in place to remind people that we are using a binary label to describe the ecological impact of an energy source, when in fact that ecological impact would be better described in scalar or vector terms. [2]yes, I know the energy sector is heavily regulated.
gramstrong 6y ago
Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Yeah, why not? If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing business with ethical consumers. I think if you commit yourself to your ideal, you're either going to end up being complicit in some really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary "line" where you stop being apolitical.
- bArray 6y ago
  > If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely > concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing > business with ethical consumers. What if their idea of ethics doesn't align with your idea of ethics? What if all left/right wing people are banned from using a tool? Or some other arbitrary internal measure of ethics? You're only willing to follow along with this line of thinking whilst it aligns with your interpretation of ethics. > [..] you're either going to end up being complicit in some > really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary > "line" where you stop being apolitical. Being neutral doesn't make you complicit. The moment you take action (for either good or bad purposes), then you become complicit.
onion2k 6y ago
We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. That's obvious nonsense. People who are good asking people who are bad to stop what they're doing is quite reasonable, especially on an objectively measurable topic like the environmental impact of mining. Honestly, the suggestion that software shouldn't be treated as a political issue is something I never thought I'd see being argued in a relatively intelligent and enlightened community like HN. Software runs the world. It's obviously political. From governments embargo'ing the sale of strong encryption to companies EULA'ing their products to stop them from being used to design nuclear weapons how could you possibly imagine software as "just a tool"? Of course it isn't.
- funcDropShadow 6y ago
  >> We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. > This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. That's obvious nonsense. That's obvious nonsense. Where does GP suggest that everyone an equal impact or an equal voice? Nowhere. What is wrong with asking people to follow the same maximes they are requesting others to follow? Don't we all expect the police to uphold and follow the law exactly because they ask others do the same.
- kanox 6y ago
  > Honestly, the suggestion that software shouldn't be treated as a political issue is something I never thought I'd see being argued in a relatively intelligent and enlightened community like HN. No, it's just that your definition of "intelligent enlightenment" is bring drown every aspect of life in politics. I'm so fucking sick of this garbage, please fuck off.
- etrautmann 6y ago
  The examples go beyond the abstract issue of whether or not software is an apolitical tool. According to the linked article, Autodesk has been greenwashing for marketing while profiting off of the coal industry. The argument here is not whether software should be apolitical, but whether Autodesk specifically should cease greenwashing if it's not going to take actions that are in line with its marketing materials around the environment. The other layer, of course, is the specific pressure to restrict access to Autodesk tools to the coal industry, which is a trickier and more political question regardless of how important.
hobofan 6y ago
> We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. In general I agree, but it's much harder to do that if the other people are already (deceptively) acting like the are a good example.
shadowgovt 6y ago
"It's not the hammer manufacturer's fault in how their product is used" is a philosophy that took a pretty huge hit when physicists were called upon to solve the problems of the first atomic bomb.

by bArray 6y ago

doctorhandshake 6y ago

This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my friend's skull in'. Would you sell it to them?

troydavis 6y ago
> This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my friend's skull in'. This is called a "Faulty analogy" or "False analogy": https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.h..., https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit... In this case, you've equated two things because they can both cause some amount of harm, but have ignored the quantity of harm, the existence and quantity of positive benefits, and the presence of stated intent.
- onion2k 6y ago
  The point is that all the good of Autodesk's products in non-mining industries is great but when a company like someone who makes mining equipment comes along Autodesk should treat them as they're someone who says they're going to use the software to bash their friend's planet in.
- gramstrong 6y ago
  No it's not. doctorhandshake wasn't even making an analogy. They were applying OP's rule (we shouldn't dictate business based on political beliefs) to a hypothetical in order to demonstrate its negative moral outcome.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  > quantity of harm It's very possible (I'd argue probable) that operating a single, large-scale coal mining operation causes more total harm than bashing a single person's skull in with a hammer. > existence and quantity of positive benefits Coal as an industry is unnecessary at the scale it exists at today, so any added efficiencies in that industry due to the use of Autodesk products most likely count as a harm rather than a positive benefit. > presence of stated intent From the press releases on the page linked by the OP, it seems that Autodesk is well aware of the activities of the coal companies using their software, to the point that they use it as a selling point for their products. Perhaps the first moment they began selling to those companies they were unaware, but at this point they have explicitly advertised to the public that they know what those companies are doing. * Edited to fix line breaks
ignoramceisblis 6y ago
If Autodesk had not profited from sales to these types of people, would they be in a position--or even exist--to provide their helpful technology for more noble efforts?

adamsea 6y ago

> Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? Sorry for the extreme example. Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. The question is where and how to draw that line, and, the process we currently use to do that is public discussion, civil society, and democratic government. So I think it's perfectly appropriate to talk and think about this.

lliamander 6y ago
> Do you want a hardware store to have a "free fertilizer for white supremacists" sign? That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of what I see the OP advocating for. > Point I'm trying to make is, at a certain point, yes, we want to restrict things based on political ideology, and always have. Who is this "we"?
- bArray 6y ago
  > That would be explicitly promoting an ideology through > commercial action, which is pretty much the opposite of > what I see the OP advocating for. Exactly. There is a major difference between neutrality and support. But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. > Who is this "we"? Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > But let's re-imagine this. The person walks into the hardware store and expresses aloud "I plan to use this for dubious purposes". Then this person has expressed illegal intent and the store owner should inform the authorities, if nothing else for their own safety. I agree, though I'm not sure I have good words to describe an operating principle that would allow one to sell a hammer to an coal company but would allow one to deny a hammer to someone declaring their intent to commit assault with it. You could say something like "I will sell to anyone for any lawful purpose", but then you get into questions like "what about lawful behavior that I consider to be a grave wrong?". The devil is in the details. In general, I think the solution is free association. The problem I see is that there are some very cynical third parties out there attacking their ideological foes at an economic level, by using social manipulation to direct other people's free associations in a coordinated manner to push those foes out of normal economic life altogether. I say these third parties are cynical, because if Autodesk did stop working with the coal industry these third parties would defend Autodesk's right to "free association" in that choice, but those same third parties would happily use force of law to ban Autodesk from doing business with the coal industry if they could. >> Who is this "we"? > Somebody who believes they are in the category of being a "good" person. Almost everybody believes they are in this group, not matter what "side" they are on. This pretense of consensus is one such rhetorical device of the social manipulators.

wcerfgba 6y ago

I think manufacturer responsibility is a function of both the purpose/use of the product and their removal from the particular nefarious uses. For example, if a company makes nuts and bolts, it is true that they can be used to make bombs or oil rigs, but they are also used to make hairdryers and ovens and many other things. Additionally, nut and bolt manufacturers usually do not sell directly to the end users of their products, they sell through a long supply chain. If a supplier sells nuts and bolts to an oil company or arms manufacturer, that supplier is more responsible than the bolt manufacturer because they are the final step in selling to the business of dispute. If the company makes nuts and bolts which are only useful for making bombs, then the manufacturer responsibility increases because they know what their product is going to be used for. Basically, if you can answer the question "what is this product going to be used for?" before you distribute it, you inherit responsibility for that use, because you could have chosen not to have distributed it, and therefore prevented that use of the product. In the case of Autodesk, their products have a wide variety of uses, but they supply directly to their customers, so they know who they are selling to and therefore what each particular license will be used for, and therefore they incur some responsibility.

lliamander 6y ago
Assuming that Autodesk refusing to do business with the coal industry has any effect, the only immediate effect would likely be an increase in energy costs, which would disproportionately affect the poor. Whether it would actually result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions seems more questionable to me.
- esrauch 6y ago
  If it affected coal energy prices it would make the relative price of other sources more competitive, wouldn't it?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Making "green"[1] energy more competitive is not the same thing as making it cheaper. Yes, providers my switch to more green energy if the cost differential is not as great, but that doesn't mean that the consumer sees any real benefit. For the consumer not to be impacted, the critical step would be for the actual cost of "green" energy to go down. This is done by allowing coal and "green" energy to compete in a relatively unregulated manner[2]. [1]Scare quotes are in place to remind people that we are using a binary label to describe the ecological impact of an energy source, when in fact that ecological impact would be better described in scalar or vector terms. [2]yes, I know the energy sector is heavily regulated.

gramstrong 6y ago

Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours? Yeah, why not? If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing business with ethical consumers. I think if you commit yourself to your ideal, you're either going to end up being complicit in some really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary "line" where you stop being apolitical.

bArray 6y ago
> If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely > concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing > business with ethical consumers. What if their idea of ethics doesn't align with your idea of ethics? What if all left/right wing people are banned from using a tool? Or some other arbitrary internal measure of ethics? You're only willing to follow along with this line of thinking whilst it aligns with your interpretation of ethics. > [..] you're either going to end up being complicit in some > really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary > "line" where you stop being apolitical. Being neutral doesn't make you complicit. The moment you take action (for either good or bad purposes), then you become complicit.

onion2k 6y ago

We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. That's obvious nonsense. People who are good asking people who are bad to stop what they're doing is quite reasonable, especially on an objectively measurable topic like the environmental impact of mining. Honestly, the suggestion that software shouldn't be treated as a political issue is something I never thought I'd see being argued in a relatively intelligent and enlightened community like HN. Software runs the world. It's obviously political. From governments embargo'ing the sale of strong encryption to companies EULA'ing their products to stop them from being used to design nuclear weapons how could you possibly imagine software as "just a tool"? Of course it isn't.

funcDropShadow 6y ago
>> We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. > This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. That's obvious nonsense. That's obvious nonsense. Where does GP suggest that everyone an equal impact or an equal voice? Nowhere. What is wrong with asking people to follow the same maximes they are requesting others to follow? Don't we all expect the police to uphold and follow the law exactly because they ask others do the same.
kanox 6y ago
> Honestly, the suggestion that software shouldn't be treated as a political issue is something I never thought I'd see being argued in a relatively intelligent and enlightened community like HN. No, it's just that your definition of "intelligent enlightenment" is bring drown every aspect of life in politics. I'm so fucking sick of this garbage, please fuck off.
etrautmann 6y ago
The examples go beyond the abstract issue of whether or not software is an apolitical tool. According to the linked article, Autodesk has been greenwashing for marketing while profiting off of the coal industry. The argument here is not whether software should be apolitical, but whether Autodesk specifically should cease greenwashing if it's not going to take actions that are in line with its marketing materials around the environment. The other layer, of course, is the specific pressure to restrict access to Autodesk tools to the coal industry, which is a trickier and more political question regardless of how important.

hobofan 6y ago

> We should all look to change ourselves before trying to change other people - lead by example and others will follow. In general I agree, but it's much harder to do that if the other people are already (deceptively) acting like the are a good example.

shadowgovt 6y ago

"It's not the hammer manufacturer's fault in how their product is used" is a philosophy that took a pretty huge hit when physicists were called upon to solve the problems of the first atomic bomb.