I'm gonna try something a bit heavy here, and I'll ask that you read with a bit of nuance (with the caveat that nuance is not inherently good or bad, some things should be nuanced, other things shouldn't be). I don't ask good faith, as I don't think that's a reasonable policy, but I do ask that you read the following few posts *carefully* especially if you disagree.
1 Boost
0 Likes
This federated comment is not yet available here.
@whitequark @xgranade No one would trust vibe coded software to not send them to jail though, move fast and break things would never have happened.
There would likely be a lot less software, but it would be a lot higher quality, which is my main concern. Open source is a tool to good software and it is failing at it's purpose.
@whitequark @xgranade So why is it that the person who designs the hardware of a pacemaker takes that risk, but the person who designs the software doesn't?
@Canageek @whitequark A lot of software isn't put in pacemakers, though? If someone puts software into a pacemaker, and they then sell that pacemaker as a medical device, that's a quite different context than where most OSS projects sit.
@xgranade @Canageek I'm also not sure that the engineers that work on pacemaker hardware have personal liability if it malfunctions.
I don't know much about pacemakers, but I worked at a UK startup involved with automotive hardware/software (ISO 26262 certified), which arguably puts more lives at risk because of the scale, and it would be news to me that I'm personally liable for defects in the end product
@whitequark @xgranade A P. Eng. who puts their official stamp on something (Which is required for a lot of types of things before sale or construction) is legally liable for any defects in the design in Canada and the US (I can't speak to Europe or elsewhere).
The point is not to put the engineer in jail, it's to prevent employers from bullying the engineer into signing off on things that aren't safe and making so only someone who has a level of certification tries to do engineering.
With that hell of a preface in place, consider a thought experiment. There's a piece of open source software you use on the daily, offered by its developers and maintainers completely free of monetary cost.
It is, notably, somewhat aggressive about auto-updating. Perhaps it has a nontrivial security surface, such that this is justified, but it's part of the thought experiment regardless.
Suppose one day it gets a new splash screen, including a very prominent swastika.
How should you respond?
This is obviously contrived. While there are outspoken Nazis in open source (DHH and the hyprland folks come to mind), they generally engage in more cryptonazi shit and don't advertise quite that way.
But this is a thought experiment. It is, moreover, *my* thought experiment that I'm inviting you on.
Given those caveats, that this is contrived and artificial, what emotions would you find yourself feeling in that moment, launching a previously beloved app?
It is, to be absolutely clear, *not your project*. In a very real (if narrow) sense, the developers and maintainers are well within their rights to publish that update to *their* application, to *their* project. There might be issues with the code of conduct or terms of service on their forge, but that's aside from the point of the thought experiment: there is a thing you use on the daily that now presents very clear and strong fascist imagery directly into your eyeballs.
A few questions, then, with respect to this *highly contrived* thought experiment:
• What right, if any, do the developers and maintainers have to push that update onto your machine?
• What right, if any, do you have to object to how the developers and maintainers manage their project?
• Do your answers change if the fascist imagery is softer; say it's a MAGA hat instead of a swastika, perhaps.
• Do your answers change if the fascist imagery is soft enough to be plausibly deniable?
