4 ms·

> Making alcohol should be legal. Specifically selling it to a kid is not legal, because then you are specifically helping them commit a crime. This seems reas

by bhupy 6y ago

> Making alcohol should be legal. Specifically selling it to a kid is not legal, because then you are specifically helping them commit a crime. This seems reasonable. > Likewise I don't blame steel mills for producing steel that is later used in guns wielded by dictators on their own people. So far, a steady train of thought > I sure do blame the people that sell the guns to said dictators with full knowledge of their likely use case though. This is a bit of a jump. Up to this point, you had a gradually growing line of argument, but then jumped straight to selling guns to dictators. There's a step right before, and that's manufacturing the gun itself — is that acceptable in your view? I think most people agree that selling guns to dictators is bad, but whether or not the gun should be manufactured at all, and sold to police and militaries of countries with republican governments is debatable. Palantir does not work with "dictators". At least according to their IPO S-1 filing, as a matter of policy they only work with US and her allies. Whether you think that NATO states constitute "dictators" is an orthogonal and controversial claim. If you agree that NATO defense agencies and local police departments don't constitute "dictators", then you would agree that what Palantir is doing here, per your analogy, is "making alcohol", but not "selling it to a kid".

prophesi 6y ago
(I'm not the original poster) I wouldn't conflate the US as a dictatorship (maybe a broken two-party corporatocracy), but in light of the BLM protests, dealing with local police departments to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. In light of Snowden's revelations, dealing with ICE to better surveil their own citizens is unethical.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > but in light of the BLM protests, dealing with local police departments to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. I'm not sure that this is so clear cut. This also one of those things where it's fairly uncontroversial that the George Floyd (and all of the other comparable incidents) were unquestionably bad. But is that representative of all policing? Are police departments, as a concept, unethical? I'm not sure that this is clear cut or obvious. And finally, all of these police departments are funded and run by republican forms of government (which BTW are predominately one-party democracies, just not the party that's popular to hate), that can democratically change. It's not a dictatorship. Any more than 21st century Italy is a "dictatorship" because it briefly had an authoritarian Prime Minister (Berlusconi). > In light of Snowden's revelations, dealing with ICE to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. Sure, and I think that it's up to the public to elect leaders that change these policies, which is possible because the US is a Federal republic, not a dictatorship. Unfortunately, in light of right-wing extremism, domestic surveillance is increasingly developing bipartisan approval. Is it unethical to serve the needs of the people even if some subset of those people don't approve of domestic surveillance? Unless it's not about doing business with dictators, it's about doing business with democracies that enact policies we don't like, but that's a different line of argument entirely, and one much less straightforwardly bad than "selling guns to dictators".
  - prophesi 6y ago
    > But is that representative of all policing? Are police departments, as a concept, unethical? In their current state, yes. Tough on Crime, War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex are unwarranted and destructive. > (which BTW are predominately one-party democracies, just not the party that's popular to hate), that can democratically change. It's not a dictatorship. [...]) State and local governments that don't change party-wise are much worse, as their actions are even less accountable; there's no reason to improve. > in light of right-wing extremism, domestic surveillance is increasingly developing bipartisan approval It used to be assumed we had domestic privacy; it's Snowden's revelations that let us know we don't have such rights. Now we've found ourselves in violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > In their current state, yes. Tough on Crime, War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex are unwarranted and destructive. But this presupposes that those things are unambiguously bad. "Tough on Crime"? The American public broadly agrees that crime is bad and should be punished. I agree with you that the War on Drugs is bad, but that's not representative of policing as a whole. I understand the "ACAB" outlook, but you have to understand that this isn't an objective moral position, it's purely subjective. > State and local governments that don't change party-wise are much worse, as their actions are even less accountable; there's no reason to improve. You're conflating dictatorships where the people have no mechanism by which to enact change with democracies where the people enact policies you don't like. As a software engineer at Palantir, you're essentially selling weapons to democratically elected governments whose constituents broadly agree with and vote for policies you don't like. That's obviously not great, but it's also not as obviously bad as the punchy "selling weapons to dictators". > It used to be assumed we had domestic privacy; it's Snowden's revelations that let us know we don't have such rights. Now we've found ourselves in violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sure, and it's been 10+ years since Snowden's revelations. We've had 2 presidential elections and 2 mid-term elections since then to address the problem using the levers of our republican government. A far cry from "dictatorships", and by no means is it obvious that it's unethical to provide software for an elected government that has enacted policy you and I both don't like.

by bhupy 6y ago

prophesi 6y ago

(I'm not the original poster) I wouldn't conflate the US as a dictatorship (maybe a broken two-party corporatocracy), but in light of the BLM protests, dealing with local police departments to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. In light of Snowden's revelations, dealing with ICE to better surveil their own citizens is unethical.

bhupy 6y ago
> but in light of the BLM protests, dealing with local police departments to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. I'm not sure that this is so clear cut. This also one of those things where it's fairly uncontroversial that the George Floyd (and all of the other comparable incidents) were unquestionably bad. But is that representative of all policing? Are police departments, as a concept, unethical? I'm not sure that this is clear cut or obvious. And finally, all of these police departments are funded and run by republican forms of government (which BTW are predominately one-party democracies, just not the party that's popular to hate), that can democratically change. It's not a dictatorship. Any more than 21st century Italy is a "dictatorship" because it briefly had an authoritarian Prime Minister (Berlusconi). > In light of Snowden's revelations, dealing with ICE to better surveil their own citizens is unethical. Sure, and I think that it's up to the public to elect leaders that change these policies, which is possible because the US is a Federal republic, not a dictatorship. Unfortunately, in light of right-wing extremism, domestic surveillance is increasingly developing bipartisan approval. Is it unethical to serve the needs of the people even if some subset of those people don't approve of domestic surveillance? Unless it's not about doing business with dictators, it's about doing business with democracies that enact policies we don't like, but that's a different line of argument entirely, and one much less straightforwardly bad than "selling guns to dictators".
- prophesi 6y ago
  > But is that representative of all policing? Are police departments, as a concept, unethical? In their current state, yes. Tough on Crime, War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex are unwarranted and destructive. > (which BTW are predominately one-party democracies, just not the party that's popular to hate), that can democratically change. It's not a dictatorship. [...]) State and local governments that don't change party-wise are much worse, as their actions are even less accountable; there's no reason to improve. > in light of right-wing extremism, domestic surveillance is increasingly developing bipartisan approval It used to be assumed we had domestic privacy; it's Snowden's revelations that let us know we don't have such rights. Now we've found ourselves in violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > In their current state, yes. Tough on Crime, War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex are unwarranted and destructive. But this presupposes that those things are unambiguously bad. "Tough on Crime"? The American public broadly agrees that crime is bad and should be punished. I agree with you that the War on Drugs is bad, but that's not representative of policing as a whole. I understand the "ACAB" outlook, but you have to understand that this isn't an objective moral position, it's purely subjective. > State and local governments that don't change party-wise are much worse, as their actions are even less accountable; there's no reason to improve. You're conflating dictatorships where the people have no mechanism by which to enact change with democracies where the people enact policies you don't like. As a software engineer at Palantir, you're essentially selling weapons to democratically elected governments whose constituents broadly agree with and vote for policies you don't like. That's obviously not great, but it's also not as obviously bad as the punchy "selling weapons to dictators". > It used to be assumed we had domestic privacy; it's Snowden's revelations that let us know we don't have such rights. Now we've found ourselves in violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sure, and it's been 10+ years since Snowden's revelations. We've had 2 presidential elections and 2 mid-term elections since then to address the problem using the levers of our republican government. A far cry from "dictatorships", and by no means is it obvious that it's unethical to provide software for an elected government that has enacted policy you and I both don't like.