Each of us builds capabilities used for both good and evil.
The modern extent of government power and private influence would be unthinkable even decades ago. Personal rights have failed to keep up, in part because it requires constitutional or legislative action that's basically impossible because of politics or jurisdiction (international).
As a practical result, we can't really absolve ourselves of responsibility by saying that it's legal, or that it's for another country to decide, or that it's necessary to gain access to a market.
No one doubts that IBM/ACM was morally culpable for providing systems they knew would be used for "organizing" undesirables by the Nazi's. It's much less clear whether doing devops at twitter helps or hurts Modi, or if that's a bad thing.
But it helps to have some smell tests. Mine are:
- Everyone worldwide should be treated with the same respect - American or not.
- It's better for speech and commerce to be free, when it's aiming for true understanding and mutual benefit.
- Every technology should be openly assessed for who it benefits or harms, who decides its use, whether it can be safely managed, and whether it corrupts or improves those it affects.
Analytically, the notion of commercial franchise is quite helpful: twitter has the franchise for a current event stream, Modi has a franchise over legislation in India, etc. All tech companies build their own franchise (with moats, etc.), and may coordinate in mutually-reinforcing teams. Franchises are not only bargaining power but also a whole ecosystem self-organizes around them. The stronger and more relevant the franchise, the bigger the payday, and the more enticing it is to take over. That creates very strong incentives to hold your nose (and be used as a tool), or to steer well clear (and be, well, irrelevant).
I salute those who struggle with these difficult questions.
The modern extent of government power and private influence would be unthinkable even decades ago. Personal rights have failed to keep up, in part because it requires constitutional or legislative action that's basically impossible because of politics or jurisdiction (international).
As a practical result, we can't really absolve ourselves of responsibility by saying that it's legal, or that it's for another country to decide, or that it's necessary to gain access to a market.
No one doubts that IBM/ACM was morally culpable for providing systems they knew would be used for "organizing" undesirables by the Nazi's. It's much less clear whether doing devops at twitter helps or hurts Modi, or if that's a bad thing.
But it helps to have some smell tests. Mine are:
- Everyone worldwide should be treated with the same respect - American or not.
- It's better for speech and commerce to be free, when it's aiming for true understanding and mutual benefit.
- Every technology should be openly assessed for who it benefits or harms, who decides its use, whether it can be safely managed, and whether it corrupts or improves those it affects.
Analytically, the notion of commercial franchise is quite helpful: twitter has the franchise for a current event stream, Modi has a franchise over legislation in India, etc. All tech companies build their own franchise (with moats, etc.), and may coordinate in mutually-reinforcing teams. Franchises are not only bargaining power but also a whole ecosystem self-organizes around them. The stronger and more relevant the franchise, the bigger the payday, and the more enticing it is to take over. That creates very strong incentives to hold your nose (and be used as a tool), or to steer well clear (and be, well, irrelevant).
I salute those who struggle with these difficult questions.