10 ms·

Software is basically a recipe + the resulting "meal". When I go to a typical restaurant, I also have no freedom to do the cooking as I wish. I'm served with a

by V-2 4y ago

Software is basically a recipe + the resulting "meal". When I go to a typical restaurant, I also have no freedom to do the cooking as I wish. I'm served with a product whose "source code" I usually don't even know. As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. Being uncomfortable with something doesn't necessarily make that thing immoral if it's not forcefully imposed on you.

paskozdilar 4y ago
> As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. You could use the same argument for voluntary slavery, yet modern laws forbid selling yourself away to a slaver.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shukantpal 4y ago
  Yes and? Not a remotely fair comparison.
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    How is it not a fair comparison? In both cases, a person is entering a harmful contract. In both cases, the person's consent doesn't make the contract any less harmful. You can consent to whatever, it doesn't make the thing you're consenting to moral.
    - shukantpal 4y ago
      The reason the latter is immoral is because common sense tells us no rational person would enter a contract to slavery under reasonable circumstances. That is not true for software.
    - diegoperini 4y ago
      You can install a software. Don't like it, then can uninstall. You can be enslaved by your choice. Then ask your freedom back, your master may reject.
      - paskozdilar 4y ago
        Just because users are not restrained by force does not mean they are not in some way coerced to use the software. Social media is useless without other people also using it. If closed-format document sharing is common in your community, you may have to choose between using proprietary software and not participating in your community. The point is, the end result, people using proprietary software, is bad. People may choose to be use proprietary software, and that's their right, just as they can choose to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. But that doesn't make proprietary software any less bad.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        V-2 4y ago
        1. Harmful or unhealthy is not the same as immoral. If whisky distilleries and wineries are immoral, too, then at the end of the day, what isn't? 2. I won't get cancer or liver problems because I haven't seen the source code of my washing machine's programmer/timer. I wouldn't read it even if it was available (despite being a programmer myself), because my time is limited, and I don't see the benefit as worth the effort. 3. There is a difference between actual abuse and potential for abuse. Is unprotected sex immoral in and of itself? You don't know if your partner doesn't have an STD (just like you don't know whether some non-transparent piece of software doesn't spy on you). It's a matter of trust, and yes this trust is often violated. But does it make the unprotectedness immoral in and of itself? 4. "Just because users are not restrained by force does not mean they are not in some way coerced to use the software. [...] If closed-format document sharing is common in your community, you may have to choose between using proprietary software and not participating in your community." But the same is true for an open format, if it's common in your community, isn't it? :) You don't freely choose to use it (by the standards you just set), if you are socially coerced into it.
- V-2 4y ago
  Mortgage credits, student loans (and there are major ethical systems that actually consider them immoral, eg. Islam generally prohibits charged interest).... Or military enlistment contracts... There are plenty of examples where you voluntarily sell your freedom away - and the agreement makes backing out rather non-trivial. It's just not called slavery - because it isn't quite that, "voluntary slavery" is a bit of an oxymoron (who's doing the enslaving?).

by V-2 4y ago

paskozdilar 4y ago

> As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. You could use the same argument for voluntary slavery, yet modern laws forbid selling yourself away to a slaver.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shukantpal 4y ago
Yes and? Not a remotely fair comparison.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  How is it not a fair comparison? In both cases, a person is entering a harmful contract. In both cases, the person's consent doesn't make the contract any less harmful. You can consent to whatever, it doesn't make the thing you're consenting to moral.
  - shukantpal 4y ago
    The reason the latter is immoral is because common sense tells us no rational person would enter a contract to slavery under reasonable circumstances. That is not true for software.
  - diegoperini 4y ago
    You can install a software. Don't like it, then can uninstall. You can be enslaved by your choice. Then ask your freedom back, your master may reject.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      Just because users are not restrained by force does not mean they are not in some way coerced to use the software. Social media is useless without other people also using it. If closed-format document sharing is common in your community, you may have to choose between using proprietary software and not participating in your community. The point is, the end result, people using proprietary software, is bad. People may choose to be use proprietary software, and that's their right, just as they can choose to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. But that doesn't make proprietary software any less bad.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - V-2 4y ago
        1. Harmful or unhealthy is not the same as immoral. If whisky distilleries and wineries are immoral, too, then at the end of the day, what isn't? 2. I won't get cancer or liver problems because I haven't seen the source code of my washing machine's programmer/timer. I wouldn't read it even if it was available (despite being a programmer myself), because my time is limited, and I don't see the benefit as worth the effort. 3. There is a difference between actual abuse and potential for abuse. Is unprotected sex immoral in and of itself? You don't know if your partner doesn't have an STD (just like you don't know whether some non-transparent piece of software doesn't spy on you). It's a matter of trust, and yes this trust is often violated. But does it make the unprotectedness immoral in and of itself? 4. "Just because users are not restrained by force does not mean they are not in some way coerced to use the software. [...] If closed-format document sharing is common in your community, you may have to choose between using proprietary software and not participating in your community." But the same is true for an open format, if it's common in your community, isn't it? :) You don't freely choose to use it (by the standards you just set), if you are socially coerced into it.
V-2 4y ago
Mortgage credits, student loans (and there are major ethical systems that actually consider them immoral, eg. Islam generally prohibits charged interest).... Or military enlistment contracts... There are plenty of examples where you voluntarily sell your freedom away - and the agreement makes backing out rather non-trivial. It's just not called slavery - because it isn't quite that, "voluntary slavery" is a bit of an oxymoron (who's doing the enslaving?).