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
Suppose that I'm highly religious:

1. I make tools (wedding planning software)

2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my tools to plan a gay wedding)

3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally

Do I have any responsibility for what happens?

Or (alternatively):

1. I make tools (highly specialized chemicals)

2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my chemicals to improve abortions)

3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally

Do I have any responsibility for what happens?

=====

IMO, it's better not to attempt to be morality police. Focus on making great tools.

>>umvi+Cn
In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way.

I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action.

If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.

>>flambl+Px
Well, I disagree. I have more of a "live and let live" or "golden rule" type philosophy. I wouldn't want someone denying me service because they disagree with my beliefs (and by extension, actions), so I don't deny service to people who have beliefs (and by extension, actions) I disagree with.

>>umvi+pz
"Live and let live" and "golden rule" are great philosophies to live by.

But you still have responsibility when you assist others in doing things, whether you agree or disagree with those things.

Otherwise you are ignoring the "let live" part of your own philosophy.

For example, someone comes to you asking for your services to help them kill a third person.

If you believe in the "let live" part of your philosophy, you cannot assist in depriving someone of life in that way.

Same applies to the golden rule. It's easy to say you don't want to be denied assistance from others, so you won't deny it to them. But that's the easy scenario. Consider, when Alice is asked by Bob to help damage you, do you think the golden rule tells Alice to deprive you of life and liberty? I don't think it does.

>>jlokie+dI
You are over-complicating it. Evil people might use my software on GitHub to help kill people. I'm okay with that. I'm not going to try to prevent it; it's impossible. Their blood is not on my hands any more than the blood of Nice France victims is on the truck company's hands.

>>umvi+KL
I think it's obvious that the scope here is "things you are aware of (or could choose to be) and are within your control".