your first point regarding "no non-controversial statements" points out a flaw in my logic that i hope we can move past to my example.

i try to illustrate, that the graph of `ACTIONS <-> PEOPLE + TOOLS <-> MAKERS OF TOOLS` has been an obviously controversial one in the past as applied to weaponry, using guns as an example. so why should it not be equally controversial for any profession? the tool is variable.

which you answer with your last point: "guns don't kill people" and an admittance of ethical responsibility are not mutually exclusive. and maybe there has never been a controversy like i am suggesting. which is a great point and presses me to reiterate: where is this programmer who does not believe his job has ethical implications?

and IF IT IS a falsehood programmers believe: you think telling some number of programmers they are ethically insufficient could not possibly lead to a controversial discussion?

you're suggesting that if i make a knife for buttering bread and it kills someone because i was careless in my creating of the knife, there is "obviously" no ethical impact because my intent was good?

and this leads to my real point. find me 1 programmer who perpetuates this myth that there exists an engineer who says its impossible for their job to invoke ethics.

funny that the top of this list says it's a "falsehood programmers believe" yet not a single person here wants to take that side. either it's painfully obvious or it's not a myth. pick one.

by that logic, basically every decision we ever make has an ethical impact. which is probably true but kind of watered down.

> Making a non-reflective tactical assault blade with a knuckle grip and claiming that you did not think about it’s uses is a little silly right?

most certainly. therefor, it would also be a little silly to act like knife makers consider ethics of their job a "falsehood".

you can't have your cake and eat it too. either it's so obvious that that programmers are subject to ethics that THERE IS NO MYTH and no one actually believes this, or the myth exists for a reason.

a lot of the country would argue that gun makers don't have too much an ethical concern when building guns. surely you have heard the phrase "guns don't kill people". and so how dare me try and apply that argument here on their behalf.

i think the easiest way to point out the controversy in the statement is that NO ONE HERE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT? SO HOW IS IT A "FALSEHOOD PROGRAMMERS BELIEVE"?

how do i find myself defending the most ridiculous shit here?... like an algorithm can't work without a UI.

> guy 1: "index the Fourier Transform of all songs"

> guy 2: "[don't forget about] their huge database[!]"

how is this not contrarian? biz guy spotted? the dude straight up fucking said to build a database of "ALL SONGS". if you think that's simple you're either not thinking hard enough or you have no idea what he's talking about.

saying the algorithm "wouldn't work" without an app is like saying my door doesn't work without a doorknob.

OP made a point: Shazam is not magic, and people have the opportunity to compete or DIY. to me, it seems simple/contrarian/not helpful to respond with "they have an app too"

unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.

what is that, if not a fake attack for political purposes?

which is the bigger offense?

https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-photo-of-president-trump-dump...

an honest question, do your content police block CNN for this one article? if yes, i respect your consistency but i think CNN deserves some forgiveness. if no, why not? what is the threshold? any threshold is just A SECOND slippery slope.

> The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened

i see. and who gets to decide what has happened? CNN or FOX? Google or Mozilla?

i think... show me a group capable of political objectivity, invulnerable to influence, and i can start to come around.

you want a company or government to decide what content gets blocked. that is what's partisan.

remember this conversation when the guy you don't like gets control of that company or government. cheers mate. i mean well.

now. who gets to arbitrate what is "political"? who gets to arbitrate what is "fiction"? who gets to arbitrate someone else's "intent"?

Clinton? Trump? Bezos? Huffington? pick your poison. and i'll find half a country that disagrees with you.

signed,

a very confused liberal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

or (to play coy): you're suggesting we block fiction from the internet...?