5 ms·

To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a s

by aiilns 5y ago

To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Google chrome is the way it is because Google does value money and power above people's privacy. The Macbook is not easily repairable because of Apple's values. Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. That's what political means, it amazes me how the meaning has been altered, especially in the US.

vadfa 5y ago
>Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf? >Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  A pen maker is just as entitled (and socially obligated, in my opinion) to reflect on the uses of his tool as a software developer is, just as all tool makers are. Some tools are exclusively used for ill, some primarily used for ill, some dual-use, some designed for good and sometimes used for ill, some overwhelmingly good with occasional abuses. Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work. Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives. None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take. If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.
  - aiilns 5y ago
    Haha that's what I was thinking when I wrote about the knife, but it didn't fit with what I had in mind very well. I really like your comment and agree with what you've written, what I was going for (and failed to really spell out) is that by definition everything within the public sphere is politics. Everything that shapes or defines the relationships between groups or individuals is politics. That's what one will find if he searches dictionaries for politics. But somehow the word has taken on new meaning and people manage yo argue nonsensically with it. I'm sure that people who argue like this against politics/things being political all have slightly different things in mind and noone understands the original meaning of politics.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Not all software projects, but certainly some software projects, specifically those trying to create infrastructure. Over time, we have accumulated some wisdom that society is worse off when we try to politicize a bridge, so that only people with certain beliefs are allowed to cross the bridge, or make telephone calls, or use electricity, etc. We want everyone to be able to make the telephone call and to cross the bridge. Even if they are going to commit a crime and the bridge helps them commit that crime. Even if they are not committed to western liberal values. It is this type of apolitical treatment of infrastructure that provides numerous benefits necessary for the infrastructure to thrive: 1. You can't sue the bridge builder or telephone carrier if someone uses the infrastructure to do Bad Thing. This is necessary for the infrastructure to exist. Imagine if a telephone company had to worry about a kidnapper using their phones to make calls. 2. Much infrastructure becomes more useful as more people use it (network effects), in which case the infrastructure should not be fragmented where each tribe has to build their own rival infrastructure. It's more efficient for rival tribes to put aside their differences and have everyone use the same infrastructure. This is especially true in increasing scale situations. 3. Infrastructure that requires long term support and maintenance through a variety of different regimes will need to prove that it is not favoring one regime over another. For the bridge this can be government, but for a project like Tor, they will need the contributions of software developers that do not believe in the western liberal project together with developers that do. And certainly for users running exit nodes this applies as well. Now against these benefits are the costs. Does it hurt you that your political enemy is allowed to also use the telephone to coordinate? Well, from a pure power point of view, you would like to dominate and cripple them, but from the point of view of the infrastructure, no, them making a phone call does not prevent you from doing the same. So in that type of a situaiton, it's best to have a truce and say everyone is allowed to use and contribute to the infrastructure. Now in some situations you can't have a truce because your hatred is so strong. Then you have war. That's when you deny your enemies access to your bridges while blowing up their bridges. And they do the same to you. But one thing about that state of affairs is that it's never good for infrastructure. When you politicize infrastructure, you get less of it. So no, it's not a good idea to try to make everything political. This is true regardless of anyone's moral intuitions. It's an objective fact that society is better off when certain things are not politicized, especially infrastructure services.

by aiilns 5y ago

vadfa 5y ago

>Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf? >Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.

notafraudster 5y ago
A pen maker is just as entitled (and socially obligated, in my opinion) to reflect on the uses of his tool as a software developer is, just as all tool makers are. Some tools are exclusively used for ill, some primarily used for ill, some dual-use, some designed for good and sometimes used for ill, some overwhelmingly good with occasional abuses. Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work. Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives. None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take. If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.
- aiilns 5y ago
  Haha that's what I was thinking when I wrote about the knife, but it didn't fit with what I had in mind very well. I really like your comment and agree with what you've written, what I was going for (and failed to really spell out) is that by definition everything within the public sphere is politics. Everything that shapes or defines the relationships between groups or individuals is politics. That's what one will find if he searches dictionaries for politics. But somehow the word has taken on new meaning and people manage yo argue nonsensically with it. I'm sure that people who argue like this against politics/things being political all have slightly different things in mind and noone understands the original meaning of politics.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Not all software projects, but certainly some software projects, specifically those trying to create infrastructure. Over time, we have accumulated some wisdom that society is worse off when we try to politicize a bridge, so that only people with certain beliefs are allowed to cross the bridge, or make telephone calls, or use electricity, etc. We want everyone to be able to make the telephone call and to cross the bridge. Even if they are going to commit a crime and the bridge helps them commit that crime. Even if they are not committed to western liberal values. It is this type of apolitical treatment of infrastructure that provides numerous benefits necessary for the infrastructure to thrive: 1. You can't sue the bridge builder or telephone carrier if someone uses the infrastructure to do Bad Thing. This is necessary for the infrastructure to exist. Imagine if a telephone company had to worry about a kidnapper using their phones to make calls. 2. Much infrastructure becomes more useful as more people use it (network effects), in which case the infrastructure should not be fragmented where each tribe has to build their own rival infrastructure. It's more efficient for rival tribes to put aside their differences and have everyone use the same infrastructure. This is especially true in increasing scale situations. 3. Infrastructure that requires long term support and maintenance through a variety of different regimes will need to prove that it is not favoring one regime over another. For the bridge this can be government, but for a project like Tor, they will need the contributions of software developers that do not believe in the western liberal project together with developers that do. And certainly for users running exit nodes this applies as well. Now against these benefits are the costs. Does it hurt you that your political enemy is allowed to also use the telephone to coordinate? Well, from a pure power point of view, you would like to dominate and cripple them, but from the point of view of the infrastructure, no, them making a phone call does not prevent you from doing the same. So in that type of a situaiton, it's best to have a truce and say everyone is allowed to use and contribute to the infrastructure. Now in some situations you can't have a truce because your hatred is so strong. Then you have war. That's when you deny your enemies access to your bridges while blowing up their bridges. And they do the same to you. But one thing about that state of affairs is that it's never good for infrastructure. When you politicize infrastructure, you get less of it. So no, it's not a good idea to try to make everything political. This is true regardless of anyone's moral intuitions. It's an objective fact that society is better off when certain things are not politicized, especially infrastructure services.