5 ms·

So. Much. This. Technology is inherently neutral.

teddyh 12y ago
Well, weapons are also inherently violent. Many people try to reassure themselves with variants of what you wrote, which all are just variants of “I just make the bombs, I don’t drop them.”. I am less than convinced by this line of reasoning.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Dynamite can be used to bomb a city or to build a railroad but it isn't called a "weapon" when you're building a railroad.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    True, there is a difference between explosives and bombs. But if you are actually making bombs, I don’t think saying “Technology is inherently neutral” is sufficient.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      So you bring up three separate issues. First, what is the difference between bombs and explosives supposed to be? If you're just defining "bombs" as "explosives used for killing" so that you can condemn bombs as a consequence of condemning war, you're attacking the use rather than the technology. Nobody claims bad people can't use neutral technologies for evil purposes. Second, even if we take the "bombs as weapons of war" definition of the technology, it's still inherently neutral because the bombs can just as well be used as leverage to negotiate peace as they can be to blow up the enemy. And finally, what part of the Tor Project is analogous to making bombs? Wouldn't the analogous argument have to be that Tor is purely a weapon of violence with no value to innocent parties like journalists or whistle blowers?
      - teddyh 12y ago
        > […] what is the difference between bombs and explosives […]? If there is no difference, then use something else, it was just an example. Say, machetes and swords. > […] bombs can just as well be used as leverage to negotiate peace […] It is precisely this argument that I don’t really buy. It feels akin to the argument of “If I don’t do it, someone else would do it, so it might as well be me.”. > […] what part of the Tor Project is analogous to making bombs? I was not talking about the Tor Project at all, and I was not trying to make a point about making privacy tools. I was merely trying to argue against the soothing falseness of “Technology is inherently neutral.”. If you make, I don’t know, bread or something, sure, we could agree on that being neutral. But don’t tell me that M1 tanks are neutral. Just because there is difficulty drawing a line at a specific point does not disprove the existence of a difference.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > It is precisely this argument that I don’t really buy. It feels akin to the argument of “If I don’t do it, someone else would do it, so it might as well be me.”. It isn't saying that at all. The issue is not that if you don't make weapons then someone else will do it instead. The issue is that if you don't make weapons then you won't be able to defend you and yours from ruffians and invaders with stones and bats who would kill your children and rape your women. And when the invaders have trucks and guns instead of stones and bats then you need to have tanks and bombs, etc. Because weapons are neutral tools. In the hands of the good guys they deter the bad guys. That's why it's so important that the tools themselves not be condemned. "If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns."
        teddyh 12y ago
        > kill your children and rape your women Firstly, that sentence is badly sexist – it presumes that I own “my” children and “my” women, and that I, myself, is not a woman. And, isn’t this exactly what I was saying? I.e. “I must make weapons since someone else would otherwise make weapons and attack me, therefore it might as well be me who makes weapons and attacks them.” Also, you must differentiate between the argument against having guns and the argument against making guns. A person might own guns out of practical necessity but still not want to participate in the manufacturing of more of them.

Well, weapons are also inherently violent. Many people try to reassure themselves with variants of what you wrote, which all are just variants of “I just make the bombs, I don’t drop them.”. I am less than convinced by this line of reasoning.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
Dynamite can be used to bomb a city or to build a railroad but it isn't called a "weapon" when you're building a railroad.
- teddyh 12y ago
  True, there is a difference between explosives and bombs. But if you are actually making bombs, I don’t think saying “Technology is inherently neutral” is sufficient.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    So you bring up three separate issues. First, what is the difference between bombs and explosives supposed to be? If you're just defining "bombs" as "explosives used for killing" so that you can condemn bombs as a consequence of condemning war, you're attacking the use rather than the technology. Nobody claims bad people can't use neutral technologies for evil purposes. Second, even if we take the "bombs as weapons of war" definition of the technology, it's still inherently neutral because the bombs can just as well be used as leverage to negotiate peace as they can be to blow up the enemy. And finally, what part of the Tor Project is analogous to making bombs? Wouldn't the analogous argument have to be that Tor is purely a weapon of violence with no value to innocent parties like journalists or whistle blowers?
    - teddyh 12y ago
      > […] what is the difference between bombs and explosives […]? If there is no difference, then use something else, it was just an example. Say, machetes and swords. > […] bombs can just as well be used as leverage to negotiate peace […] It is precisely this argument that I don’t really buy. It feels akin to the argument of “If I don’t do it, someone else would do it, so it might as well be me.”. > […] what part of the Tor Project is analogous to making bombs? I was not talking about the Tor Project at all, and I was not trying to make a point about making privacy tools. I was merely trying to argue against the soothing falseness of “Technology is inherently neutral.”. If you make, I don’t know, bread or something, sure, we could agree on that being neutral. But don’t tell me that M1 tanks are neutral. Just because there is difficulty drawing a line at a specific point does not disprove the existence of a difference.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > It is precisely this argument that I don’t really buy. It feels akin to the argument of “If I don’t do it, someone else would do it, so it might as well be me.”. It isn't saying that at all. The issue is not that if you don't make weapons then someone else will do it instead. The issue is that if you don't make weapons then you won't be able to defend you and yours from ruffians and invaders with stones and bats who would kill your children and rape your women. And when the invaders have trucks and guns instead of stones and bats then you need to have tanks and bombs, etc. Because weapons are neutral tools. In the hands of the good guys they deter the bad guys. That's why it's so important that the tools themselves not be condemned. "If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns."
        teddyh 12y ago
        > kill your children and rape your women Firstly, that sentence is badly sexist – it presumes that I own “my” children and “my” women, and that I, myself, is not a woman. And, isn’t this exactly what I was saying? I.e. “I must make weapons since someone else would otherwise make weapons and attack me, therefore it might as well be me who makes weapons and attacks them.” Also, you must differentiate between the argument against having guns and the argument against making guns. A person might own guns out of practical necessity but still not want to participate in the manufacturing of more of them.