6 ms·

It's the same as the age old "guns don't kill people" that seems to work fine for the weapons industry in the US.

jacquesm 4y ago
The world is larger than the US, and even there that argument does not hold water: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...
- teakettle42 4y ago
  They sued using the argument that the manufacturer’s advertising violated Connecticut consumer law. That’s not remotely the same thing as holding a creator liable for the misuse of his work by unrelated third-parties. Frankly, the illiberal push towards “ban everything that could be misused” is disheartening, especially when we see it applied to a speech-based tool like this one.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Yes, they did that because they did what everybody in that position would do: pick the argument that is most likely to find sympathy with a jury. Also: note that the degree to which everything is labeled 'speech' is fairly uniquely American.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate. The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification. Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one. These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.
mjbeswick 4y ago
The difference is that guns are literally deigned for killing people. There are nonlethal alternatives, so when people buy guns (the exception being hunting) the purpose it to be able to kill someone.
- mod 4y ago
  There are non-lethal alternatives to devices "literally deigned [sic] for killing people?" This logically does not compute. I guess you mean in situations where guns are currently used, other strategies could be employed? Since the goal of a firearm is to hurl a chunk of metal through the air at high speed, I can't really think of alternatives. Besides air rifles, we just have traditional powder guns filling that niche. The usefulness of firearms extends beyond killing people, and I don't think "guns are literally designed for killing people" is very accurate. I think the majority of guns are not designed for killing people. I think the Ruger 10/22 is the best-selling gun of all time, and it's .22 caliber, which is definitely not what you'd choose if the goal of your design was to kill people.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I'm a bit confused here: the majority of the uses for guns seem to not be to 'hurl a chunk of metal through the air at high speed' but the intended outcome: to wound or kill someone. Sure, there is hunting but since the advent of the farm hunters have seen less and less employ, to the point that some societies have no hunters at all. Guns are universally classed as 'weapons' not as 'metal object throwers'.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >The usefulness of firearms extends beyond killing people Not really, not for the vast majority of them. For hunting or sport shooting a bolt action makes sense, but a 9mm pistol is a tool specifically designed to kill people, just like an automatic rifle is.

The world is larger than the US, and even there that argument does not hold water: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...

teakettle42 4y ago
They sued using the argument that the manufacturer’s advertising violated Connecticut consumer law. That’s not remotely the same thing as holding a creator liable for the misuse of his work by unrelated third-parties. Frankly, the illiberal push towards “ban everything that could be misused” is disheartening, especially when we see it applied to a speech-based tool like this one.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Yes, they did that because they did what everybody in that position would do: pick the argument that is most likely to find sympathy with a jury. Also: note that the degree to which everything is labeled 'speech' is fairly uniquely American.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate. The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification. Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one. These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.

mjbeswick 4y ago

The difference is that guns are literally deigned for killing people. There are nonlethal alternatives, so when people buy guns (the exception being hunting) the purpose it to be able to kill someone.

mod 4y ago
There are non-lethal alternatives to devices "literally deigned [sic] for killing people?" This logically does not compute. I guess you mean in situations where guns are currently used, other strategies could be employed? Since the goal of a firearm is to hurl a chunk of metal through the air at high speed, I can't really think of alternatives. Besides air rifles, we just have traditional powder guns filling that niche. The usefulness of firearms extends beyond killing people, and I don't think "guns are literally designed for killing people" is very accurate. I think the majority of guns are not designed for killing people. I think the Ruger 10/22 is the best-selling gun of all time, and it's .22 caliber, which is definitely not what you'd choose if the goal of your design was to kill people.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  I'm a bit confused here: the majority of the uses for guns seem to not be to 'hurl a chunk of metal through the air at high speed' but the intended outcome: to wound or kill someone. Sure, there is hunting but since the advent of the farm hunters have seen less and less employ, to the point that some societies have no hunters at all. Guns are universally classed as 'weapons' not as 'metal object throwers'.
- trasz 4y ago
  >The usefulness of firearms extends beyond killing people Not really, not for the vast majority of them. For hunting or sport shooting a bolt action makes sense, but a 9mm pistol is a tool specifically designed to kill people, just like an automatic rifle is.