[pfisherman]

This is not a very good analogy. Bread is not a dual use technology like surveillance tech.

There are plenty of classes of goods that are heavily regulated. For example, explosives.

[borski]

Sure, and nearly every government can buy explosives.

[giraffe_lady]

Can't speak for anyone else but I certainly don't consider bombsmonger an honorable profession.

[borski]

Nobody said anything about honor. I was simply stating the fact that cherry-picking surveillance tech as suddenly “not to be sold to governments” is as equally absurd as suggesting that weapons manufacturers should not sell any weapons to any government.

Of course they will.

[giraffe_lady]

It's not cherry picking to point out that some technologies are more like arms than they are like ads, and that we should treat the creators as we do arms dealers. However that happens to be.

[borski]

Okay. The article is about SV selling to America’s police.

America’s police has no problem acquiring arms.

I’d argue that, in effect, they’re already treated as arms dealers, who sell to police all the time.

[psunavy03]

And I suppose the Ukrainians are supposed to just defend themselves with sticks?

[giraffe_lady]

Why not? It's what we expect of palestinians isn't it?

[borski]

This is a garbage take. I’d strongly reconsider your stance on what is or isn’t simple about the Israel/Gaza conflict.

For one, it turns out that Hamas had a lot more than sticks on 10/7.

The only simple thing about this conflict is that nothing about it is simple. Simplistic takes like this are meaningless trash, and I really genuinely mean that with no ill intent.

[psunavy03]

Good Lord, this is a morally bankrupt take on so many levels.