zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
Is GitHub a hug part of what ICE ... does?

Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company actually detaining people, but call me terrible but I'm not sure I'd feel the same about letting them pay to host some code...

>>duxup+1h
There's a big strain of consequentialism running through the modern left - no neutral service is held as neutral if it permits the 'wrong' customers.

>>Fellsh+zh
Suppose that:

1. You provide tools to a group. 2. You believe (in a informed way) that the group intends to act immorally. 3. Your tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally.

Do you have any responsibility for what happens?

>>karpie+1l
If you do have that responsibility, then a huge swath of open source developers in the world are guilty of abetting pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists.

>>oh_sig+ww
Do these open source developers:

A) Have a means of identifying which of their users are pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists? B) Have a means of selectively denying people access to the tools? C) Have a means of determining which of these users would using their tools to rape, produce child porn, and enact terrorism?

If so, then yes, I would say they're guilty.

>>karpie+vx
Well, in the past open source developers have attempted to put morality clauses into their licenses(ie You may not use this software in the development of nuclear weapons), but it was determined by the open source overlords that if a license puts a restriction on a specific usage, it is no longer Open Source.

So everyone who chooses to license their software as open source is making a choice that intentionally limits their own ability to prevent others from using the licensed software legally. So no, open source software developers don't have the choice to restrict certain groups from using it - but that is because it was a choice they themselves made on how to license the software. Isn't that the ultimate hand washing?