• charles@lemmy.computer.surgery
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Programming code is pure logic and has no opinions.

    Can you explain to me how, for example, Stuxnet is apolitical?

    All they do is permit/restrict specific rights to attribute, use, modify, reproduce, distribute, etc. the code.

    Can you explain how these restrictions/permissions are apolitical?

    • pitninja@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stuxnet itself doesn’t care whose centrifuges it destroys (in fact it doesn’t care or have an awareness that it’s destroying anything at all), it does what it’s programmed to do and is deployed to do by people with political goals. It’s not the same thing as Stuxnet itself being political.

      I did say that I could conceive of one way that software licenses could be considered somewhat political if one’s politics reject the validity of intellectual property. But then again, the software licenses are also not the code itself. If one doesn’t believe in the concept of intellectual property, one is free to accept whatever risk is involved with breaking the license and using it anyway. The software doesn’t care who’s running it.

      I know this is all somewhat pedantic, but I pretty firmly believe no software is inherently political. At least maybe not until we have a computer system that achieves some form of sentience and its operating instructions are subject to its own will.

      • finder@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think this is pedantic at all. This is a pretty reasonable perspective, but I’m not quite sure yet if I agree or disagree.

        What are your thoughts on the death of the artist? I feel like the intentions have some kind of value in all art (or software in this case). It is yet another thing I am fuzzy on.