> it is should not be within the purview of a company to make such moral judgements.
Who should, if not the company who makes the product? Nobody? Courts after harm has occurred?
We have these exact controls in place for military hardware. If your company builds missiles, you better believe it's your responsibility not to sell to enemies of the state.
(Edit: I'd like to avoid the parent's particular example, as it's still an extremely polarizing issue. I hope we can still discuss cooperate responsibility in general.)
If you build missiles, you are not responsible for deciding who to sell to. The government is responsible for deciding who you get to sell. You are just responsible for selling only to approved buyers.
> Correct. AI (or other technology) are tools. They can be used for good, they can be used for evil, it is should not be within the purview of a company to make such moral judgements.
So basically when IBM was selling business machines that were being used in the concentration camps to the Nazi government it was ok. And when other US companies were selling all kinds of things including technology to the Nazis, which were used in the war, including for killing actual American soldiers.
And if the Nazis won and were able to implement all they wanted at a global scale, these companies wouldn't be responsible for aiding the Nazi war effort and its eventual triumph.
> people to mask-off with antisemitism trying
Children are being murdered on live video. That's crazy talk at this point. If murdering children is semitism, then you are on the wrong side. If it isn't, then you are just talking nonsense because what they are doing is unjustifiable.
The murder wont go away and the discussion wont stop if you scream 'anti-semitism'. Stop murdering children first.
Of course, Israelis and their supporters will say the same thing.
There is no one party to this state of affairs still alive that threw the first stone. There was October 7, before that there were settlements and annexations, before that there were intifadas, before that there were mandates, civil wars etc, all the while punctuated by stray killings, bombings and rocket attacks, on and on reaching back millennia.
I think plenty of people are tired of the simplistic, reductive, one-side treatment protesters give the issue, as you’re showing here. They think they can dictate to everyone how it should be solved. Condescension like that just never plays well.
Comparing the Israel-Palestine conflict to Nazi Germany is both a qualitative and quantitative error. The degree to which Israel has killed Palestinians is dwarfed by the numbers the Nazis put up. The Nazis invaded many countries, occupying a total area over ten times the size of modern Germany. All that in the span of a decade or two, depending on when you count the start; compared to a conflict that in modern times alone is measured in a hundred years, with a small fraction of the impact. With multiple countries committed to their destruction.
It’s a disappointing comparison and I can’t help but think it’s made deliberately to provoke an emotional reaction.
Wait. What? A company shouldn’t review if the technology it’s selling is used for mass murder? That’s the most batshit point of view I’ve heard in a long time.
Oh please. This sort of blind “Israel is not POSSIBLY incapable of committing the same atrocities every other State is capable of committing” is a uniquely American brand of anti-anti-Semitism. Considering the actual merits and factors of a situation instead of simplifying everything to “yeah, but Jewish people have had a hard time” is exactly the sort of easily consumable useless drivel that doesn’t belong here.
I don’t get the genocide argument. Israel has complete air superiority, if genocide was the goal they could have leveled Gaza in the first day. Casualties would have been at least over 1 million not 30k. And they wouldn’t go door-to-door, drop flyers and knock-bombs (again why bother if genocide is the intent). The fact that the causality count is as low as it is considering they are fighting a genocidal terrorist organization that’s honeycombed itself in heavily populated civilian centers is already an achievement.
I'm not saying they aren't capable of committing war crimes or genocide or whatever other terms you want to use. Clearly Israel is eminently capable of simply flattening Gaza (and Judaea/Samaria if they wanted) and they are restrained enough to not do so.
I'm saying I don't think they are by any objective measure and the constant fixation with accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide, combined with the disgusting amount of antisemitism I've seen after 10/7 has led me to the conclusion that accusing them of imagined crimes is deeply rooted in antisemitism.
Honestly tiresome to see accusations of antisemitism and reference to the Palestinian West Bank as "Judea and Samaria". How does the Palestinian West Bank become Judea and Samaria? Through forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, and/or genocide.
"Greater Israel" can only come about through mass crimes against humanity and expansionist/pseudo-revanchist military adventurism.
Those are but two of the many names those places have had over the years. Was your usage idiomatic, or expressive of an policy desire for Israel to rule over those lands?
