The only difference between Saudi Arabia and anyone else is the news media is mad at Saudi Arabia right now. The news media don't care about Iran, or China, or Venezuela, or dozens of other countries that have a checkered recent history. Any one of them could be described as "brutal", if you wanted to color a story.
Saudi Arabia was the same Saudi Arabia last year as it is this year. Only difference: people can't think for themselves and take emotional queues from the news media, and it's "Saudi hate month" in the media echo chamber.
By "assholes", you seem to mean "people who the news media hates".
I predict Silicon Valley will decide they don't really care about the news media getting their panties all bunched up. And the news media will forget about it too as soon as they see a monetary incentive to forget.
Neither one of you are helping them. People who can take responsibility for themselves need a steady job they can keep -- handouts and programs are only helpful temporarily, on the margins. People who can't take responsibility for themselves can't really be helped, and all your handouts are doing is enabling their personal self-destructive behavior to continue.
If YouTube weren't a monopoly, Nasim Aghdam might have just moved to a different platform rather than going to YouTube headquarters and shooting people when they took away her income. (Or maybe not, who knows what crazy people might do?) But there are no viable alternate platforms for people making video content to be discovered and monetize content -- YouTube has a monopoly.
Makers of smartphones use Android because Android is a monopoly. Makers of smartphones don't have the choice to use iOS.
People made up emotionally satisfying stories and decided to believe them. It's not Slashdot, it's everywhere. Reality doesn't play any more because it's not dramatic enough for bored narcissists.
To serve the needs of the many over the desires of the few.
Habitat for Humanity builds individual homes for individual families. Not "the many".
You are saying their number one mission isn't to build houses for people, it's actually to cater to the feelings of the special people who may take offense or not and thereby dictate the world's activity and all of human communication. After making sure feelings aren't hurt, Habitat for Humanity may be allowed time for their secondary pursuit, building houses for people.
And not just Habitat for Humanity. Everyone else must also solicit the feelings of the special people first. Above loyalty, above kindness, above fairness, above ethics, above truth, above science and reason, above anything useful or practical or valuable or good in any way, at the very top of everything: the feelings of the special people matter most of all.
An ethical person wouldn't defend the concept of extorting a society just so you can continue to drag shit down and ruin everything for everyone, but hey, here you are.
No one is extorting anyone. Just don't kick people out and you won't have to face the ethical question of using their generous gift of code against their wishes while you're treating them like yesterday's garbage.
How does not treating contributors like garbage "ruin everything for everyone "? Why are you so dead set on kicking out generous contributors?
There has to be a bar.. I don't know where it is, but I suspect that we'd both agree that high crimes (rape, murder, arson, etc) would be reasonable...
If someone is in prison, how is "kicked out" functionally different than "not kicked out"?
If someone contributes code with a back door or otherwise intentionally sabotages the code, or threatens or commits physical violence against others on the project, that would be reasonable to kick them out and keep their code. But you should probably make an effort to replace their code anyway.
Yes, it's perfectly fine. They didn't LOAN the kernel their code, they GAVE it. Just how long do you suppose that gift is supposed to grant you total control of the entirety of the Linux kernel developers?
Slashdot Mirror
The only difference between Saudi Arabia and anyone else is the news media is mad at Saudi Arabia right now. The news media don't care about Iran, or China, or Venezuela, or dozens of other countries that have a checkered recent history. Any one of them could be described as "brutal", if you wanted to color a story.
Saudi Arabia was the same Saudi Arabia last year as it is this year. Only difference: people can't think for themselves and take emotional queues from the news media, and it's "Saudi hate month" in the media echo chamber.
By "assholes", you seem to mean "people who the news media hates".
I predict Silicon Valley will decide they don't really care about the news media getting their panties all bunched up. And the news media will forget about it too as soon as they see a monetary incentive to forget.
You can't have everything. But you can certainly complain about not having everything.
This will allow Google to properly target ads to breast cancer patients.
Neither one of you are helping them. People who can take responsibility for themselves need a steady job they can keep -- handouts and programs are only helpful temporarily, on the margins. People who can't take responsibility for themselves can't really be helped, and all your handouts are doing is enabling their personal self-destructive behavior to continue.
Cats climbing in and out of boxes are awesome.
And GPLv3+No-Military-Use-Because-I-Don't-Like-Your-View-On-SSM isn't the answer.
Had to look up SSM: Surface to Surface Missiles
Heat -seeking missiles
Walmart customers and employees are happy too. So yes. What is unethical?
That's not the test of what's a monopoly.
If YouTube weren't a monopoly, Nasim Aghdam might have just moved to a different platform rather than going to YouTube headquarters and shooting people when they took away her income. (Or maybe not, who knows what crazy people might do?) But there are no viable alternate platforms for people making video content to be discovered and monetize content -- YouTube has a monopoly.
Makers of smartphones use Android because Android is a monopoly. Makers of smartphones don't have the choice to use iOS.
People made up emotionally satisfying stories and decided to believe them. It's not Slashdot, it's everywhere. Reality doesn't play any more because it's not dramatic enough for bored narcissists.
So, in short, this is just a typical news story: at least as much false as true.
YouTube and Android are clearly monopolies.
A lot of people complain because they get paid to complain. There's no info to suggest many genuine complaints.
What is unethical about Amazon? Amazon customers and employees are happy. And Amazon isn’t a monopoly like Google.
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry...
"We believe you were for him until the hearing." -- No one
To serve the needs of the many over the desires of the few.
Habitat for Humanity builds individual homes for individual families. Not "the many".
You are saying their number one mission isn't to build houses for people, it's actually to cater to the feelings of the special people who may take offense or not and thereby dictate the world's activity and all of human communication. After making sure feelings aren't hurt, Habitat for Humanity may be allowed time for their secondary pursuit, building houses for people.
And not just Habitat for Humanity. Everyone else must also solicit the feelings of the special people first. Above loyalty, above kindness, above fairness, above ethics, above truth, above science and reason, above anything useful or practical or valuable or good in any way, at the very top of everything: the feelings of the special people matter most of all.
Leaving is not getting kicked out.
First one to stop clapping.
Don't ever be the first one to stop applauding.
An ethical person wouldn't defend the concept of extorting a society just so you can continue to drag shit down and ruin everything for everyone, but hey, here you are.
No one is extorting anyone. Just don't kick people out and you won't have to face the ethical question of using their generous gift of code against their wishes while you're treating them like yesterday's garbage.
How does not treating contributors like garbage "ruin everything for everyone "? Why are you so dead set on kicking out generous contributors?
No it isn’t
There has to be a bar.. I don't know where it is, but I suspect that we'd both agree that high crimes (rape, murder, arson, etc) would be reasonable...
If someone is in prison, how is "kicked out" functionally different than "not kicked out"?
If someone contributes code with a back door or otherwise intentionally sabotages the code, or threatens or commits physical violence against others on the project, that would be reasonable to kick them out and keep their code. But you should probably make an effort to replace their code anyway.
But just because you changed your mind? Sorry, the courts say no.
"Kicked out" is not "changed your mind". And "courts" rule based on laws, not ethics.
Yes, it's perfectly fine. They didn't LOAN the kernel their code, they GAVE it. Just how long do you suppose that gift is supposed to grant you total control of the entirety of the Linux kernel developers?
Not "getting kicked out" is not "total control".
Where would you set the bar? How do you decide if someone has been kicked out reasonably or unreasonably?
Don’t kick them out. Unless you are willing to give up using their code.
"Kicked out" is not "change your mind".