Comment by zelon88 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zelon88 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While I believe in the GNU definition of free software, how are we to maintain a community that's truly open-source when the parties you speak of don't believe in free software themselves? Are we really to give them the best our world has to offer so they can use it to suppress people and act against their interests? Do we let them use our libraries and tools to make their world smaller for their citizens? Do we let them steal our code to change it to hurt others and then not reciprocate it back in? Do we let them take the best we have to offer with such obvious mal-intent?

If it were a difference of culture or opinion that's fine. But you're allowing rogue authoritarian states to use our technology while taking an adversarial stance to our primary purpose; the free transfer of knowledge and information. We don't need to accommodate that. They need to accommodate the freedom their people are entitled to.

Think about it. Which developers in North Korea or Iran are using Github? Answer: The ones the government lets use Github.

This is a pretty gross generalisation of the people and issues at stake. "We" the individual freedom loving, contributors. "They", the rogue nations using open source software to oppress and enslave.

Honestly it boggles my mind how easily you slipped into that mentality in response to the comment you replied to - a comment describing people caught in the crossfire, affected by the choices of nations at war, individual liberties crushed by sanctions and foreign policy.

If an individual feels wrongly and disproportionately impacted by US sanctions they can apply to the SEC for a waiver. A small, lonely dev will probably be ok.

But the issue isn't with one dev who gets caught in the crossfire. You want to stop fighting a blazing inferno to mount a rescue operation because there's one kitten in the burning apartment building.

Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy. Do you think if Github were located in Tehran that Americans would be able to post a commit right now?

> If an individual feels wrongly and disproportionately impacted by US sanctions they can apply to the SEC for a waiver. A small, lonely dev will probably be ok.

And github & Co will then invest money to not blanket-ban, but make exceptions for this individual? I have some doubts.

Do you believe that Iran's cyber warriors or their critical infrastructure people host their code on github? Because if not, you're not "fighting" the government, you're fighting individual developers.

> Do you think if Github were located in Tehran that Americans would be able to post a commit right now?

I find that a very problematic worldview, as it gives you permission to do anything. There are no limits, because "what if the table were turned? I'm doing it to them, so clearly they'd do it to me, right? So you see, I must do it to them first".

> And github & Co will then invest money to not blanket-ban, but make exceptions for this individual? I have some doubts.

I don't see why not. It's probably a simple boolean value in their database somewhere. If they can blanket ban, they can probably be selective for a minimal cost.

> Do you believe that Iran's cyber warriors or their critical infrastructure people host their code on github?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did. People put weird stuff on GH for all kinds of weird reasons. Every week we hear about an unsecured AWS bucket from some huge mega-corp or state actor who should know better. But they are all run by humans who are free to make mistakes and break rules.

> I find that a very problematic worldview, as it gives you permission to do anything.

Being the most powerful and influential player in technology gives us permission to do anything. Having (one of) the largest tech markets and the (nearly) unlimited resources to spend makes us able to do whatever we want. And if we want to keep it that way we will ensure that we don't let unfriendly nations take advantage of our technology. We developed encryption to protect our banking sector. Just because we're nice enough to open-source it doesn't give Tehran officials the freedom to use it to suppress their entire nation. If authoritarianism worked so well they would be on top of the world with all their proprietary technology and censored information. But they're not. So either you're going to play nice with our toys in the sandbox or we're taking our ball and going home.

Large services are banning IP ranges (https://gist.github.com/alibo/dfd7c258bcc44a0e8c9f7c5bfd3bd2...), so they'll have to invest and provide alternatives to those individuals.

> Being the most powerful and influential player in technology gives us permission to do anything.

Read this again, slowly. You're advocating for the law of the jungle where the actor with the biggest club has the right (and, I presume, duty?) to do whatever they please to whomever they please whenever they please.

> Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy.

What kind of jingo non-sense is that?

We now have over a century of data on how effective US foreign policy is at promoting democracy around the world and if you read the history even badly, you can't help but notice that it's much better at killing people in monstrous numbers than at promoting individual liberty.

American foreign policy isn't designed to promote "democracy around the world."

It's designed to promote democracy in the free world that the people who control the world live in.

> Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy.

[Citation needed]. It is not as if sanctions have a stellar record when it comes to promoting individual liberties. Rather the opposite - they entrench the powers that be and give them an opponent that are not themselves that they can blame the hardship of the people on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com