3 ms·

This is a good point. Some orthodox Jewish denominations find themselves in the same situation. But I'd actually like to argue against that. I wrote here [0]

This is a good point. Some orthodox Jewish denominations find themselves in the same situation. But I'd actually like to argue against that. I wrote here [0] that we ought not conflate technology morals with religion. It's important to give room to traditional religious beliefs, reasonable lifestyle choices and secular ethical stances. All are important. Saying this as someone who is a practising Christian humanist but was also once an active secular humanist/rationalist-sceptic. For most of us it would be best (in the face of all sorts of unknowns coming down the pipe in the guise of AI etc) to establish the primacy of secular ethical choice around technology. I don't boycott Big-Tech because "Jesus told me to". It's because they're dirty criminals and gangsters who I don't want to give money to. I don't go without a smartphone because "God forbids it". It's because I fundamentally object to being under 24/7 surveillance and having to carry "papers" like in some vicious tinpot dictatorship. These are just common, secular civic and personal moral choices. I am surprised that we aren't doing more to stand up for them, and very surprised that Sweden (and Finland and Estonia) of all places have such a blind-spot around social rights and respect for different opinions and lifestyles. [0] https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religious-choice/ https://techwrongs.org/2023/03/06/microsoft-is-not-a-religio...

dalke 3y ago
My issue (OP here) is that I have read and agreed to every ToS I've been given over the last few decades. I rarely upgrade macOS because of how long it take to read the new license. I use Firefox because I don't need to read the license. In one notable case I told a client I couldn't accept their contract because it was incomplete. "What's the problem? Hundreds of other companies have accepted it." "It says that I also agree to the terms at $URL but that URL doesn't work." They told me the correct URL and I was able to sign it. (Real B2B contracts are pleasingly fair, when both companies are on even terms.) I cannot agree with the Apple ToS because I do not want to give them the sole right to shut down my account. If a mobile phone is critical for daily life, then the government must be able to overrule Apple's whim or mistake, and do so quickly. If there were true competition, with many alternatives and the easy and guaranteed right to transfer to another provider, then I would also not have a problem. This is nothing to do with religion, or distrust of technology, but of who has the right to control my daily life. I trust the government of Sweden far more than I do the commercial interest of Google or Apple, who have demonstrated they are not eager participants in EU laws regarding privacy and monopoly.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Totally get you. Deeper problem: The average Western adult does not have the capacity to agree to most legal instruments (EULAs. contracts) used around digital technology today. I include myself as a computer scientist who even read a bit of law at university and has helped draft and analyse contracts. No "reasonable person" is expected to read them. Tacit and coerced "agreement" to patently egregious terms is already normalised, and this makes a complete mockery of law in our culture. At some point, if we want to rescue "the law" we must change the way people relate to technology legally.
  - dalke 3y ago
    Oh, I totally agree! When I started consulting in the 1990s I got a NoLo Press book which clearly and helpfully explained contract terms for computer consulting. I've since had a couple of decades of reading contracts to do consulting work. My knowledge does not go outside that domain, but it's still fun to read things like how the storage unit we rented prohibits keeping farm animals in it. By the way, HUGE shout out to the OmniGroup, who have the absolute best commercial+proprietary license agreement I've ever read. They even allow some reverse engineering, just not to avoid the licensing system. That strongly influenced my own proprietary license to allow the same. When I have these discussion with the government and political parties, I will be asking if the high school curriculum is being updated to include more training in reading ToS, and to ask if it's really reasonable to be personally bound to terms that no one reads. Personally I think there needs to be the equivalent of the Uniform Commercial Code, though to harmonize, standardize, and regulate app service ToS. But that's a wild idea that I cannot pursue, only wonder about. All I can focus on is that we should not require the permission of Apple or Google to be a citizen living a simple life in Sweden.
plasticchris 3y ago
I agree we should respect secular ethical choices with the same protections as religious ones, but this is currently an aspirational goal in the US. For now to get acceptance and strong legal protection of ethical choices we sort of have to wrap them in a religious shroud since that is the framework the state has to deal with protecting such choices. The issue with this is that your choices might not align perfectly with the options you have and people will say it’s not a real religion if you are the only practitioner. Maybe a workaround would be to take a dead christian denomination and use that? Other religions wouldn’t get easy acceptance here.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Food for thought, thanks. I do see that bind. Wondering what if anything you thought of that story of the woman who claimed a religious objection to using Microsoft? (Perhaps you can read my article and follow the links to the original story... I also wonder if this would fly in Britain and think about talking to church ministers about it. I deeply and sincerely cannot bring myself to enrich these crooked bastards, but I feel uncomfortable "cloaking" that in religion even though it may inform my ethics. hope that makes sense)
  - plasticchris 3y ago
    That’s wild, but it seems like it would be difficult to argue that it does not impose an undue burden as is the standard, see https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-work...

dalke 3y ago

My issue (OP here) is that I have read and agreed to every ToS I've been given over the last few decades. I rarely upgrade macOS because of how long it take to read the new license. I use Firefox because I don't need to read the license. In one notable case I told a client I couldn't accept their contract because it was incomplete. "What's the problem? Hundreds of other companies have accepted it." "It says that I also agree to the terms at $URL but that URL doesn't work." They told me the correct URL and I was able to sign it. (Real B2B contracts are pleasingly fair, when both companies are on even terms.) I cannot agree with the Apple ToS because I do not want to give them the sole right to shut down my account. If a mobile phone is critical for daily life, then the government must be able to overrule Apple's whim or mistake, and do so quickly. If there were true competition, with many alternatives and the easy and guaranteed right to transfer to another provider, then I would also not have a problem. This is nothing to do with religion, or distrust of technology, but of who has the right to control my daily life. I trust the government of Sweden far more than I do the commercial interest of Google or Apple, who have demonstrated they are not eager participants in EU laws regarding privacy and monopoly.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Totally get you. Deeper problem: The average Western adult does not have the capacity to agree to most legal instruments (EULAs. contracts) used around digital technology today. I include myself as a computer scientist who even read a bit of law at university and has helped draft and analyse contracts. No "reasonable person" is expected to read them. Tacit and coerced "agreement" to patently egregious terms is already normalised, and this makes a complete mockery of law in our culture. At some point, if we want to rescue "the law" we must change the way people relate to technology legally.
- dalke 3y ago
  Oh, I totally agree! When I started consulting in the 1990s I got a NoLo Press book which clearly and helpfully explained contract terms for computer consulting. I've since had a couple of decades of reading contracts to do consulting work. My knowledge does not go outside that domain, but it's still fun to read things like how the storage unit we rented prohibits keeping farm animals in it. By the way, HUGE shout out to the OmniGroup, who have the absolute best commercial+proprietary license agreement I've ever read. They even allow some reverse engineering, just not to avoid the licensing system. That strongly influenced my own proprietary license to allow the same. When I have these discussion with the government and political parties, I will be asking if the high school curriculum is being updated to include more training in reading ToS, and to ask if it's really reasonable to be personally bound to terms that no one reads. Personally I think there needs to be the equivalent of the Uniform Commercial Code, though to harmonize, standardize, and regulate app service ToS. But that's a wild idea that I cannot pursue, only wonder about. All I can focus on is that we should not require the permission of Apple or Google to be a citizen living a simple life in Sweden.

plasticchris 3y ago

I agree we should respect secular ethical choices with the same protections as religious ones, but this is currently an aspirational goal in the US. For now to get acceptance and strong legal protection of ethical choices we sort of have to wrap them in a religious shroud since that is the framework the state has to deal with protecting such choices. The issue with this is that your choices might not align perfectly with the options you have and people will say it’s not a real religion if you are the only practitioner. Maybe a workaround would be to take a dead christian denomination and use that? Other religions wouldn’t get easy acceptance here.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Food for thought, thanks. I do see that bind. Wondering what if anything you thought of that story of the woman who claimed a religious objection to using Microsoft? (Perhaps you can read my article and follow the links to the original story... I also wonder if this would fly in Britain and think about talking to church ministers about it. I deeply and sincerely cannot bring myself to enrich these crooked bastards, but I feel uncomfortable "cloaking" that in religion even though it may inform my ethics. hope that makes sense)
- plasticchris 3y ago
  That’s wild, but it seems like it would be difficult to argue that it does not impose an undue burden as is the standard, see https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-work...