4 ms·

I realize this is a technology forum, so it's popular to think about it in a very laser-focused kind of way where technology is neutral, and it's only the WAY t

I realize this is a technology forum, so it's popular to think about it in a very laser-focused kind of way where technology is neutral, and it's only the WAY that people use it is a problem, but over and over in society we have seen that this is simply not true. Nuclear fission is politically and ethically neutral. An atomic bomb isn't. A hunting rifle is politically and ethically neutral. A fully automatic assault rifle isn't. A search engine is politically and ethically neutral. The way that Palantir packages and presents it and the use cases it optimizes for isn't. Now, I realize that there are a million different grey areas and exceptions with all these subjects. You can murder people with a chef's knife, after all. I'm certainly not out here claiming that if something CAN be misused it should be banned. I'm not even necessarily saying that something shouldn't be built OPTIMIZED for a particular use that some would consider unethical. There is always the very excellent argument that technology can't be repressed, and if you don't build "the thing", someone else will. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. But we all know that there are lines that are too far. I don't want to jump straight to Godwin's Law, but I would say we as society universally agree that it was indefensible for corporations to provide tools and technology to facilitate the holocaust and any form of genocide. I am not saying that ICE or certain US police forces are comparable to Nazi Germany's organizations. But there is a spectrum. And somewhere on that spectrum there is a line. And the line needs to be incorporated and considered from a humanistic point of view - one of global ethics. (vs. national ethics such as "If the US does it it's not illegal/unethical"). And from that standpoint, myself, and many others, think Palantir's ethics and chosen way of business is way over where we draw the line.

kortilla 6y ago
> A hunting rifle is politically and ethically neutral. A fully automatic assault rifle isn't. First, a hunting rifle is definitely not neutral. Vegetarians and vegans would like to have a word with you. Second, an “assault rifle” implies select-fire automatic. Otherwise there is no difference between hunting rifles and rifles just painted black to look scary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Look, gun nuts can debate semantics until they're blue in the face. I'm drawing a line between UTILITY and MURDER. Vegetarians and Vegans may be absolutely right that in an evolved elevated humanity we shall no longer harm any other living creatures, but in the grand scheme of things there are ways to hunt that are humane, sustainable, and efficient. And there are weapons/guns optimized for this utility. On the other hand there are weapons out there optimally designed for indiscriminate slaughter of other humans at close range.
  - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
    > debate semantics until they're blue in the face. > I'm drawing a line between UTILITY and MURDER. The irony is so thick here, especially when you're talking about a search engine.
    - deanCommie 6y ago
      a search engine who's utility is abuse by fascist-adjacent paramilitary police organizations to round up immigrants, discriminate against minorities, and create a pipeline of non-violent drug offenders for the private prison system.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Yawn. A gun is designed to shoot bullets. The vast majority of guns are bought and never murder. A small minority of them are used to murder animals and an even smaller minority are used to murder people. Handguns make up the majority of that latter group. I own a handgun to shoot bears and mountain lions that might try to put the moves on me when I’m deep in the Rockies. One of my friends hunts with an AR-15 body gun with no intention of ever using it on people (and it has no automatic mode). He has it because of the handy attachments. Whatever classification you think exists to draw the line does not in reality.

kortilla 6y ago

> A hunting rifle is politically and ethically neutral. A fully automatic assault rifle isn't. First, a hunting rifle is definitely not neutral. Vegetarians and vegans would like to have a word with you. Second, an “assault rifle” implies select-fire automatic. Otherwise there is no difference between hunting rifles and rifles just painted black to look scary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

deanCommie 6y ago
Look, gun nuts can debate semantics until they're blue in the face. I'm drawing a line between UTILITY and MURDER. Vegetarians and Vegans may be absolutely right that in an evolved elevated humanity we shall no longer harm any other living creatures, but in the grand scheme of things there are ways to hunt that are humane, sustainable, and efficient. And there are weapons/guns optimized for this utility. On the other hand there are weapons out there optimally designed for indiscriminate slaughter of other humans at close range.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  > debate semantics until they're blue in the face. > I'm drawing a line between UTILITY and MURDER. The irony is so thick here, especially when you're talking about a search engine.
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    a search engine who's utility is abuse by fascist-adjacent paramilitary police organizations to round up immigrants, discriminate against minorities, and create a pipeline of non-violent drug offenders for the private prison system.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Yawn. A gun is designed to shoot bullets. The vast majority of guns are bought and never murder. A small minority of them are used to murder animals and an even smaller minority are used to murder people. Handguns make up the majority of that latter group. I own a handgun to shoot bears and mountain lions that might try to put the moves on me when I’m deep in the Rockies. One of my friends hunts with an AR-15 body gun with no intention of ever using it on people (and it has no automatic mode). He has it because of the handy attachments. Whatever classification you think exists to draw the line does not in reality.