[MichaelCollins]

> They did it with good intentions

That's how the road to hell is paved.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C. S. Lewis

[throwaway5752]

I've heard that somewhere before! And it's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up. I'm not defending the action, removed from context. However, intent does matter to me and is a well established legal consideration. Note the distinction between first, second, and third degree homicide for just one example. Just plain common sense application: I will feel differently if I am hit while crossing the street by 1) an ambulance speeding to save a mother and infant in preterm labor 2) a teen driver negligently text 3) someone speeding to get somewhere on time 4) a drunk driver 5) someone swerving to hit me because they don't like people like me for some reason. I am still mashed by a car and in rehab for a year, regardless, so is it unreasonable of me to feel differently which of those cases it is?

edit: To reply to your late edit, " It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies" is magnificent, because it correctly frames the NCLA lawsuit "The robber baron's cruelty". I can recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing or trojan horse, whatever your preferred metaphor is.

I would reply "No thank you to either option, but thanks for the books, C.S. Lewis"

final edit: dmix, I am rate limited, so I can't reply to you, and I've written more than enough already. But you make a fair point, and it seems in good faith. I agree with you in general. I don't generally agree with something because someone claims, "it's for widows and orphans", which is the cliche. I just disagree with you in this particular set of circumstances. I would agree with a different lawsuit made in good faith meant to remediate the injury to the claimants.

[dmix]

People often use those good intentions to silence dissent. If anyone questions their actions you can just spin it to say "well then you obviously don't care about [good intention, ie “grandmas dying of COVID”]".

So they are a very critical piece of the puzzle with this sort of abuse of power. They can very easily muddy the waters and obfuscate things.

It's often the side effects of their actions anyway. In this case the access the app provides is the side effect. The side effects outweighing the alleged benefits is what matters. Easily the most often recurring problem is politics. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

[tigen]

A tyranny exercised with good intentions "may" be worse than all possible ones? Weak.

So, that includes all possible versions of good intentions? All good intentions lead to torment? There are no sociopathic tyrants lacking conscience?

Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to install tracking software onto people's phones.

[MichaelCollins]

> Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to

I don't give a damn what your god thinks. Or are you responding to C.S. Lewis's beliefs? Quoting a Christian doesn't make me a Christian, least of all when the quote doesn't even present a religious argument.