> Most people on here will agree that banning encryption is going too far.
Are we talking about the same people, many among us here, who don't have any problem manipulating content to fit their view and banning Free Speech ? It's a tad of an hypocrite argument...
You are placing an almost legal liability on engineer to ensure the tool is gonna be only used to fit their definition of "good" which is a problem in itself.
Gun makers are not responsible for mass shootings. The ill-intended shooters are the only one responsible for their actions.
You're saying it's a problem to ask engineers to make sure their tools will only be used for their definition of "good". But you also imply that tools should uphold "Free Speech", which is exactly that — fitting someone's definition of "good". So which is it?
Are we talking about the same people, many among us here, who don't have any problem manipulating content to fit their view and banning Free Speech ? It's a tad of an hypocrite argument...
You are placing an almost legal liability on engineer to ensure the tool is gonna be only used to fit their definition of "good" which is a problem in itself.
Gun makers are not responsible for mass shootings. The ill-intended shooters are the only one responsible for their actions.