Perhaps, but that's not one of them.

Really? Making software free is just about as political as it gets. Restricting that freedom, as happens here, is equally political. I guess you just don't this special kind of politics in your software.

Dude, I don't want to force anybody to do anything. Even if it is unethical, nobody's saying that proprietary software should be illegal (except maybe when it is paid for by public resources, but this is another issue).

I'm just refusing to partake in the proliferation of proprietary software, by my acts, and by telling other people why they might consider to do so.

I think it's this.

However, they aren't wrong, per se. Users should have control over their systems and their privacy. But hyperbole and fear mongering are not very effective at affecting change in the system.

I would argue that they have a noble mission but take it to such an extreme as to not be very practical.

Why not? I mean, software is a product like any other. I for example wouldn't like if a group like ISIS was using my software, especially if they were using it to actively help them in commiting their crimes. If I could prevent that from happening, why shouldn't I?

This sounds like an apolitical position, but it is a highly political position.

Software is and always will be tied to politics whether we like it or not. It can't be insulated from it.

Well yes, but I would be okay with the same being applied against me. Of course some basic level of politics is necessary (like licenses) if you want to count that as politics.

I won't go and put taxation politics, immigration politics or any other specific politic matters into my code or EULA. I expect this of other software as well. I don't want any unnecessary politics in the software when there clearly is no reason for it.

I accept there are people who feel that an argument in defence of certain types of software is in bad faith, and an argument made deliberately to hurt and exclude others.

It’s not much of a leap, given that harm obviously exists to many in society, and software isn’t helping, or at least that some people get much more benefit from it than others.

However, not everyone believes that software harms people. Not everyone believes that that harm is deliberate. Not everyone believes that anything can be done, and even if they do it’s probable that they have differing ideas on what is to be done.

I get that when people see problems, and they see others ignoring those problems, or arguing with them, that they feel that those other are being callous, cruel and disrespectful. As the saying goes, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

I sympathise, but I can’t agree. There are so many solutions to the world’s problems and so few who agree on any of them. I can’t just assume that everyone who adopts a contrary position is deliberately being cruel, deliberately acting out of selfishness or deliberately acting to exclude and suppress other views.

While I agree with you in general, for some reason this particular developer tends to take decisions that have very extensive consequences and make choice extremely difficult.

No. I refuse to allow such a reality to manifest itself.

Use the software which best suits your needs. I will not assess your political beliefs based on your software choices and I ask that you do the same for me.

If I researched the political alignment of all the developers of the software I want to use and only choose software made by developers whose politics sufficiently align with mine, I'd never be able to get anything done.

You need to make choices that will have tradeoffs anyway. Unless you find a consensual choice, which is very rare, you might be picking mainstream ones, which are not neutral.

Neutrality does not exist. For instance, for any software you need to choose, it will be either proprietary or open source. Both have political implications.

I think the ideal is that the software is as configurable as it needs to be in order to be useful to the people that use it, but that there's a standard configuration with sensible defaults.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. They've defined an ethical framework for software and then they discuss things being ethical or not within that framework.

Anyone is free to use a different ethical framework and decide if an action is ethical or not within that framework instead.

Exactly.

It is worse when such opinionated software is the only available corporate default that cannot be changed.

No, we are arguing the exact opposite.

> And ya know what, I think that’s BS: you definitely have a choice and if you think you can’t follow through you’re weak.

It’s not bullshit. Different people just have different priorities to yourself.

Do you think the average person gives a shit about ethical software? Or even has enough time and/or money to boycott businesses that they don’t like?

No they don’t. Businesses are just services and once they’ve finished using a product they move on with their lives.

You calling people names because they care about different concerns to you is the real issue here.

what kind of disagreement? hard to understand without knowing that.

No, they are only allowed to monetize according to laws and regulations. There is nothing magic about software making it right to disregard laws or not having respect for customers. It feels like some think software should be where to world was at the start of the industrial revolution, where companies could do what they wanted and there was no laws stopping them from dumping acid in the river.

Edit: fixed spelling

Personally, this doesn't really go against my morals or values. They installed the app. No one forced them to. Not everyone has the same set of morals and values you do. If it's not illegal and no one is harmed. I don't care so much.

To be honest I don’t see how you can understand the first bit but not the second. Yes, they can make changes that you don’t like without consulting you.