> This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest > everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. The message "improve yourself before improving ot

> This is an epic false equivalence that tries to suggest > everyone has an equal impact and an equal voice. The message "improve yourself before improving others" is really such a controversial thought? Winning hearts and minds is really the most effective method for making large impactful social changes. Idealistically, equality across the board. But various social dynamics mean that yes, some people do have more social influence than others. But I'm not entirely sure what your point is here... > 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. I think where this generally breaks down is that Autodesk is not "good" or "bad", it should be (and is acting like) a neutral body. The people within it are political, the activist is political, you're political, I'm political, but Autodesk itself is not. We shouldn't want companies to become political, the company's best interests (generally to maximize profit) does not align with those of the average person. As political entities we can influence politics, where regulation could prevent mining that destroys the environment. In terms of efficiency, rather than convincing * every * commercial 3D tool to drop support for them and then somehow stop them using open source tools or developing their own, this method seems better. It also allows for an open discussion in the public sphere, rather than bypassing the democratic process. > 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. Now you have. I do like the way that an argument that opposes your own must be unintelligent and unenlightened. I remember a time when diversity of opinion was celebrated. > Software runs the world. It's obviously political. I'll remember to ask my smart-bulb what it thinks of Trump (/s). It's not obvious at all that software (or the company selling it) is political. I think there are very good arguments for companies not to be political. > From governments embargo'ing the sale of strong encryption The politicians obviously act politically. > 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"? Companies acting in such a way might be acting politically, or they might have a special version that they sell specifically at a higher price. Companies can act politically, but out of all the licenses I read, very few have a political position on nuclear weapons. The question is, do you really want every company to take a political stance on everything? Say for example you are an environmental activist, do you want banks to take a political stance supporting oil companies (which they do), and therefore ban you from using their services? The truth is, what you actually want is companies (software or not) to be political when it aligns with your interests. When it doesn't, then what?