6 ms·

> It harms all of technology and by extension anyone who participates in the modern world. Just like any malware or other antisocial behaviour. Sure but the pr

> It harms all of technology and by extension anyone who participates in the modern world. Just like any malware or other antisocial behaviour. Sure but the problems are in order of significance are: Putin invading Ukraine Trusting things from NPM This author adding malware to his package I'm disappointed by the chorus of "keep politics out of tech" that seems so prevalent on HN, though not surprised. In general I'm in the "don't be a dick or cause problems" camp but when things are this completely broken I think anything goes. Countries are made up of people, people en masse can effect change, but often times the vibe of that one poem holds true, doesn't effect me so I don't care. It's wrong to stay silent. Every bit counts, it's only death by a thousand cuts if you actually make all of the thousand cuts, if everyone who's social responsibility to make a cut thinks "this doesn't matter anyway and i don't wanna be a dick" well... look around you at everyone who's got theirs and doesn't care.

Aspie96 5y ago
> but when things are this completely broken I think anything goes Why? If something doesn't help in any way, it shouldn't "go". Putin's invasion of Urkaine doesn't justify doing other bad things, just because those bad things aren't quite as evil. Something can be wrong without it beying literally invading another country. Putting malware in software is an example of that. > but often times the vibe of that one poem holds true, doesn't effect me so I don't care. The issue is not "not caring". The issue is weighting advantages and disadvantages and be responsible in one's actions. Politics in tech should be rejected at least in all cases in which it doesn't lead to any advantage. The existence of worse things is irrelevant.
- thot_experiment 5y ago
  > Putin's invasion of Urkaine doesn't justify doing other bad things Yes it absolutely does. Killing is bad, killing invaders in defense of your country is justified. Collapsing Russia's economy is bad, but in light of Putin's actions it's justified. Putting malware in your packages is an extension of that concept. It's unclear to me whether putting malware in your packages is effective, but it's certainly worth trying, and I absolutely can't condemn someone for that. If you wield power you are responsible for it's effects, and to some lesser extent you are responsible for the effects of your inaction.
eternityforest 5y ago
I believe pretty strongly in some of Taleb's theories. That some people are antifragile, they gain from chaos, and that the people in the strongest positions are the ones who do so. What I don't agree with is the idea of structuring society to benefit antifragile people and encourage more to become such. Indiscriminate sabotage is a type of chaos. I expect it to always benefit those who are already in the strongest positions, and harm those in the weakest positions. If one is going to do hacktivism, I'm sure they can think of something better than just randomly attacking computers supposedly in one country but probably all over the world because of IP weirdness. An attack on tech in general is somewhat of a political statement that you would like to side with the less tech dependent people, at the expense of the more technical side. This could destroy records at a Children's hospital. It could affect peace protesters. I'm not sure that anything that preferentially targets technical people while leaving those with analog-first lives unaffected is useful. It's stirring up chaos, giving power to those who benefit from chaos. Does that not include those who benefit from war? Maybe I'm wrong and this is actually going to being about world peace. But to me, it seems pretty random and poorly thought out.
- thot_experiment 5y ago
  > But to me, it seems pretty random and poorly thought out. I agree with this, it's not a move I personally would do, but yet I can't condemn it either. Lashing out like this when faced with the horrors of war makes sense to me. > What I don't agree with is the idea of structuring society to benefit antifragile people and encourage more to become such. I agree with the sentiment here, but on some level I feel that an increase in antifragility is necessary to combat the centralization of power. It strikes me as the only way to prevent bad actors in positions of power for ruining it for everyone else.

Aspie96 5y ago

> but when things are this completely broken I think anything goes Why? If something doesn't help in any way, it shouldn't "go". Putin's invasion of Urkaine doesn't justify doing other bad things, just because those bad things aren't quite as evil. Something can be wrong without it beying literally invading another country. Putting malware in software is an example of that. > but often times the vibe of that one poem holds true, doesn't effect me so I don't care. The issue is not "not caring". The issue is weighting advantages and disadvantages and be responsible in one's actions. Politics in tech should be rejected at least in all cases in which it doesn't lead to any advantage. The existence of worse things is irrelevant.

thot_experiment 5y ago
> Putin's invasion of Urkaine doesn't justify doing other bad things Yes it absolutely does. Killing is bad, killing invaders in defense of your country is justified. Collapsing Russia's economy is bad, but in light of Putin's actions it's justified. Putting malware in your packages is an extension of that concept. It's unclear to me whether putting malware in your packages is effective, but it's certainly worth trying, and I absolutely can't condemn someone for that. If you wield power you are responsible for it's effects, and to some lesser extent you are responsible for the effects of your inaction.

eternityforest 5y ago

I believe pretty strongly in some of Taleb's theories. That some people are antifragile, they gain from chaos, and that the people in the strongest positions are the ones who do so. What I don't agree with is the idea of structuring society to benefit antifragile people and encourage more to become such. Indiscriminate sabotage is a type of chaos. I expect it to always benefit those who are already in the strongest positions, and harm those in the weakest positions. If one is going to do hacktivism, I'm sure they can think of something better than just randomly attacking computers supposedly in one country but probably all over the world because of IP weirdness. An attack on tech in general is somewhat of a political statement that you would like to side with the less tech dependent people, at the expense of the more technical side. This could destroy records at a Children's hospital. It could affect peace protesters. I'm not sure that anything that preferentially targets technical people while leaving those with analog-first lives unaffected is useful. It's stirring up chaos, giving power to those who benefit from chaos. Does that not include those who benefit from war? Maybe I'm wrong and this is actually going to being about world peace. But to me, it seems pretty random and poorly thought out.

thot_experiment 5y ago
> But to me, it seems pretty random and poorly thought out. I agree with this, it's not a move I personally would do, but yet I can't condemn it either. Lashing out like this when faced with the horrors of war makes sense to me. > What I don't agree with is the idea of structuring society to benefit antifragile people and encourage more to become such. I agree with the sentiment here, but on some level I feel that an increase in antifragility is necessary to combat the centralization of power. It strikes me as the only way to prevent bad actors in positions of power for ruining it for everyone else.