[robertlagrant]

This seems like a bad idea, mostly. I think there are ethical frameworks in which technologies should operate - just as a newspaper should not put out a full page advert calling for violence against a person or group - but "morality as a feature" sounds obviously dystopian.

Once again someone is calling for power to be moved away from people and centralised. What's labelled "morality as a feature" could just be "de facto censorship".

To put it another way: causing violence in Myanmar is the worst case scenario for freedom of speech, and even then is only a worst cause because of the violence itself; the speech alone would not make it a worst case. Why does the article not consider the worst case (or even, the likely case) of having speech governed by a central body?

[Jtsummers]

Were you reading another article? The author of this one is not "calling for power to be moved away from people and centralised". Nothing like that argument at all appears in the article.

[fifyerc]

They are you're just ignoring it. 'Morality' is always presented in a binary context of morale/immoral and many of the examples in the article fall into the same pattern. You don't need to advocate centralizing power when discussing moral frameworks because it's implied in the conversation that hypothetically power will be centralized around the 'moral' viewpoint. For the same reason all morals are inherently supremecist because if they weren't they wouldn't be labeled the moral course of action.

[robertlagrant]

The tl;dr is that a system that enforces moral communication would involve centralisation of what is considered moral.