@icedquinn @pup @adiz That's a rather wild misrepresentation of consequential ethics or alternatively you've interacted solely with ones that call themselves such but are completely incoherent in truth.

Untold evil in the pursuit of a good is /by virtue of its consequences/ evil (regardless of the original intent, the consequences are the point), particularly when the net outcome is vastly increased amounts of suffering rather than any amount one might consider "equivalent or lesser".

The dev is clearly a hypocrite refusing the accept the true extent and impact of their actions for whatever reason, yes.

> the everything is political crowd tends to oxidize people that want to just make tools (because the tool isn't being designed specifically to *their* own ends.) they also tend to be completely blind and unwilling to acknowledge what they are.

Only the impractical fools. For the very same reason I consider dual-use technologies regulation idiotic. *Everything* is weaponizable with enough imagination & stubbornness. Everything is dual-use. It is *meaningless* (and impossible) to make tools that cannot be weaponized.

One can most certainly favor a design that reduces harm and makes harmless uses the easiest path, but anything else is nonsense.

A tool also has as many uses as one might manage to find for it, for the same reasons, and if an author creates a tool for their own purposes but which do not suit others? Then that's fine, that is part of why Free/Libre Software (and Libre Hardware) exist, the user can adapt, modify and share the tools as they see fit.