# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 8
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/76auj3a
@abucci
> Firstly, contributing software to an open source project cannot be a blanket "get out of jail free" card. That's a sociopathic stance, on its face, and just cannot be accepted.
I don’t understand. Why is that sociopathic? (Language barrier here? I really don’t get what you mean.)
> But thirdly, […] And the same should happen in software. […]
How do you *really know* if a project has been used in dangerous situations? (If this changes in the future, are programmers that contributed in the past – when this project was not yet used in dangerous situations – also liable?)
@abucci
> Firstly, contributing software to an open source project cannot be a blanket "get out of jail free" card. That's a sociopathic stance, on its face, and just cannot be accepted.
I don’t understand. Why is that sociopathic? (Language barrier here? I really don’t get what you mean.)
> But thirdly, […] And the same should happen in software. […]
How do you *really know* if a project has been used in dangerous situations? (If this changes in the future, are programmers that contributed in the past – when this project was not yet used in dangerous situations – also liable?)
@abucci
> Firstly, contributing software to an open source project cannot be a blanket "get out of jail free" card. That's a sociopathic stance, on its face, and just cannot be accepted.
I don’t understand. Why is that sociopathic? (Language barrier here? I really don’t get what you mean.)
> But thirdly, […] And the same should happen in software. […]
How do you *really know* if a project has been used in dangerous situations? (If this changes in the future, are programmers that contributed in the past – when this project was not yet used in dangerous situations – also liable?)
@prologic Looks like here’s a markdown rendering bug. That last part (“How do you *really know* …”) is not part of the quoted text. 🤔
@prologic Looks like here’s a markdown rendering bug. That last part (“How do you *really know* …”) is not part of the quoted text. 🤔
@prologic Looks like here’s a markdown rendering bug. That last part (“How do you *really know* …”) is not part of the quoted text. 🤔
@movq
> How do you really know if a project has been used in dangerous situations? (If this changes in the future, are programmers that contributed in the past – when this project was not yet used in dangerous situations – also liable?)
Trust me, if people got sued or went to jail, the tech industry would figure out really fast how to make these determinations. The only reason this is puzzling at all is that software development is almost entirely unregulated, and has enjoyed the equivalent of a child's life, without a care in the world.
But really, it's a silly question isn't it? You're supposed to list the licenses of open source software yo uuse in your projects. Devices and systems that have caused harm are documented by the legal system, by regulatory regimes, by people who've been harmed, etc. All the necessary data is there to connect the dots. Those dots aren't usually connected, though, because people pretend that software developers should be free of responsibility.
@movq
> How do you really know if a project has been used in dangerous situations? (If this changes in the future, are programmers that contributed in the past – when this project was not yet used in dangerous situations – also liable?)
Trust me, if people got sued or went to jail, the tech industry would figure out really fast how to make these determinations. The only reason this is puzzling at all is that software development is almost entirely unregulated, and has enjoyed the equivalent of a child's life, without a care in the world.
But really, it's a silly question isn't it? You're supposed to list the licenses of open source software you use in your projects. Devices and systems that have caused harm are documented by the legal system, by regulatory regimes, by people who've been harmed, etc. All the necessary data is there to connect the dots. Those dots aren't usually connected, though, because people pretend that software developers should be free of responsibility.