> "What exactly is the point of all of your long codes of conduct and community guidelines if the primary use for your language is the creation of a nightmare surveillance state?"
That is a weird point of view, but unfortunately not all that uncommon (when applied as a general worldview) right now. I think it's worth noting that it's generally anti-open source and free software, as it generally boils down to "you should control this thing you created as a group" as opposed to "we all created this and anyone can use it for anything, but maybe we require you to share changes so it's self perpetuating".
In my personal opinion, it's the worst type of small community social pressure taken to unhealthy extremes brought wholesale to the internet age. That is, poorly rationalized, aimed people that associate with the target rather than the target, and in this case "associate" is so tenuous as include the people that made a better hammer because someone used it to build something objectionable.
When I find this I find myself wondering if these people even really believe this, or they just express this as a strategy to influence people? I don't know enough about Dielh to know what I think is more likely.
> include the people that made a better hammer because someone used it to build something objectionable.
This is exactly why I find his argument absurd. Programming languages are just tools, there is no moral judgement attached to them. You don't get mad at people who manufacture other tools that are used for nefarious purposes.
That is a weird point of view, but unfortunately not all that uncommon (when applied as a general worldview) right now. I think it's worth noting that it's generally anti-open source and free software, as it generally boils down to "you should control this thing you created as a group" as opposed to "we all created this and anyone can use it for anything, but maybe we require you to share changes so it's self perpetuating".
In my personal opinion, it's the worst type of small community social pressure taken to unhealthy extremes brought wholesale to the internet age. That is, poorly rationalized, aimed people that associate with the target rather than the target, and in this case "associate" is so tenuous as include the people that made a better hammer because someone used it to build something objectionable.
When I find this I find myself wondering if these people even really believe this, or they just express this as a strategy to influence people? I don't know enough about Dielh to know what I think is more likely.