At some basic level you have to decide whether free flow of information is morally desirable or not. It’s somewhat axiomatic, you can argue it’s a good thing fo

At some basic level you have to decide whether free flow of information is morally desirable or not. It’s somewhat axiomatic, you can argue it’s a good thing for efficient markets, but that is actually circular reasoning as someone who prefers inefficient markets would argue against the free flow of information and in favour of information asymmetry. So I guess I’m saying that some people simply believe the world is a better place if there is more information going around, less secrecy, and fewer private deals between shsadowy figures. Many of those peole are also in favour of fewer restraints on people’s right to make choices. That seems to capture much of the place where the hackeer ethos overlaps with the startup culture: "Let people does at they like without patents and other restrictions, but give everyone the information they need to decide what to do for themselves effectively.” If I could sum it up in a phrase, I would borrow from Doctors: Informed Consent. To make an informed decision, you need to know the relevant facts and have a basic understanding of the likely actual outcomes that your chocies will create. Shadowy syndicates cutting deals with corrupt regimes do not create an environment of informed consent.