I don't know if software can be written in a way that cannot be used for harm. There are several issues with this, among them being (1) there is always a "shado

I don't know if software can be written in a way that cannot be used for harm. There are several issues with this, among them being (1) there is always a "shadow side" (a reference to the Jungian shadow), and (2) this is a form of "Do Less Harm" paradigm, and it is problematic because morality is not universal, monolithic, or consistent. Imposing what "less harm" means on someone else, will always polarize somewhere. It's the same problem with the "Do More Good" paradigm. I have been lately thinking of a different way of developing and funding improvements of software, by adding on top of the idea of open source of free software. That is, "community-supported software", similar to the idea of "community-supported agriculture". No one is going to get rich off of it, but it should allow developers to get their fair share (a reference to the permaculture ethical principles). This doesn't stop software from being used in harmful ways. However, what I'm thinking is that it helps software developed in ways that are beneficial for local communities instead of being hijacked by large corporate interests in markets that are not directly connected with the community (national stock exchanges). The end-users and local community decides what is harmful or beneficial, and pool resources to maintain and expand features.