this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
343 points (97.5% liked)
Comic Strips
15857 readers
2280 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was challenging that open source is always ethical tech. No one should have open source access to destructive tech, for example.
But is that a quality of the open source?
Would the destructive tech be more, less, or equally ethical if it was closed source?
And is one group having access to weapons of a more destructive type than other groups better for the world? Or just better for the better armed group? And is their use of the superior weaponry more moral in any way?
I highly disagree, and regardless of my personal opinion this assertion is impossible to enforce anyways. It's far too easy to create a gun or bomb (i.e. destructive tech) out of common materials and tools you find in a hardware store. Trying to supress any and all destructive would put us back to the stone age