3 ms·
That's not what the blog author is saying at all. What the author describes in the article aren't products being misused they are products that are explicitly d
by mitt_romney_12 3y ago
That's not what the blog author is saying at all. What the author describes in the article aren't products being misused they are products that are explicitly designed to be harmful. A better analogy would be that engineers should refuse to help remove safety features to make a car cheaper.
- kazinator 3y agoQuote "If you write something innocent and later find out that it is being used for evil, you are now obligated to do something about that. You can't ignore it or say you didn't know. You are now stuck and have to do your best to make that situation better." I would say that not only doesn't reflect sound ethics, it's not an example of good mental health.
- rileymat2 3y agoThat is vague enough to not be useful. But couldn’t “doing something” be a license change going forward. Seems like a reasonable application of ethics. I don’t see a huge issue here.
- dcow 3y ago> That is vague enough to not be useful. I mean that is the issue. There's nothing novel or insightful about this piece on ethics in the least. "Hand wave, hand wave, software engineers should be obliged to know about and actively mitigate all the downstream effects of their software, but only if it's evil". Yeah, okay, move along.
- kazinator 3y agoIt's possibly a huge issue because it could turn a free license into a non-free license. Words in a license will not stop an evil-doer.