[CJKinni]

I think that's fair. I like to consider three factors when considering an original creator:

1. Did they have nefarious aims?

2. Did they reasonably attempt to consider and solve issues surrounding first and second-order effects of their creation?

3. How did they react to previously unknown first and second-order harms when they found out about them?

The first two, I tend to give creators the benefit of the doubt about. But I've become quite dismayed by the responses of creators to the harms of their creations.

[slededit]

I assume the common response to #3 is that the benefits outweigh the costs. Do you not consider that a compelling argument?

[vkou]

Benefits to whom? The engineer and entrepreneur? Or the public at large?

[candiodari]

Benefits to management when the public actually believes the culpable will be punished when shit hits the fan.

Tell me, in the VW emissions scandal, did that happen ? No.

Germany literally changed the laws retroactively to avoid holding their own companies to account. This is technically illegal, but the judicial system REFUSED TO LOOK AT IT.

Given that both management of these firms, and government wants to commit fraud when culpability is assigned ... what point is there discussing the rules ? They won't be applied when it matters.

But of course there are large advantages to people believing they will be applied. Like there are advantages to people not responding to having their wallets taken from their pockets, their children kidnapped for sale into abuse, their houses robbed empty ...

This is the US government in action. Other governments, including European, are worse, not better. These are the people that make, and enforce the rules. Why are we discussing whether the right things will be happening ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqBAOX6Qegk