I am happy to let you keep showing off your circular reasoning to the world, and will happily repeat myself pointing out all my counterpoints you did not engage with and ignored.
For example:
- I claimed a technology's existence is enough to cause real world consequences. You ignored this point.
- I mentioned you are not including safeties to building a tool to protect its user[0] (the "first party" user of your tool) and its targets ("second party" people the tool-users are subjecting to your tool). That makes it legally/morally unappealing to use as a tool(puts self in danger), and morally unappealing to be subjected to. Why build a tool this way to be completely legally/morally unappealing, unless you want to cater to users specifically that do not have such legal/ethical concerns? You ignored this point.
- I have invited you to clarify your ethical view. You are circling back to a previous non-argument.
- You simply refuse to verbalize your implicit moral stance -- that your role as a "toolmaker" absolves you of all the moral consequences of its use[1]. If this is incorrect, I welcome clarification from you.
[1] This moral position has long been well-criticized and is not a sufficiently nuanced moral stance in this day and age. For an old example, consider Tom Lehrer's criticism of von Braun: "'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." [2].
I am happy to let you keep showing off your circular reasoning to the world, and will happily repeat myself pointing out all my counterpoints you did not engage with and ignored.
For example:
- I claimed a technology's existence is enough to cause real world consequences. You ignored this point.
- I mentioned you are not including safeties to building a tool to protect its user[0] (the "first party" user of your tool) and its targets ("second party" people the tool-users are subjecting to your tool). That makes it legally/morally unappealing to use as a tool(puts self in danger), and morally unappealing to be subjected to. Why build a tool this way to be completely legally/morally unappealing, unless you want to cater to users specifically that do not have such legal/ethical concerns? You ignored this point.
- I have invited you to clarify your ethical view. You are circling back to a previous non-argument.
- You simply refuse to verbalize your implicit moral stance -- that your role as a "toolmaker" absolves you of all the moral consequences of its use[1]. If this is incorrect, I welcome clarification from you.
[0] The laundry list of features of other scrapers I mentioned, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22533439
[1] This moral position has long been well-criticized and is not a sufficiently nuanced moral stance in this day and age. For an old example, consider Tom Lehrer's criticism of von Braun: "'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." [2].
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio