Not saying this would be the right way to go about preventing undesirable uses, but shouldn't building 'risky' technologies signal some risk to the ones developing them? Safe harbor clauses have long allowed the risks to be externalised onto the user, fostering non-responsibility on the developers behalf.
akersten|1 month ago
idle_zealot|1 month ago
__MatrixMan__|1 month ago
ronsor|1 month ago
The reason safe harbor clauses externalize risks onto the user is because the user gets the most use (heh) of the software.
No developer is going to accept unbounded risk based on user behavior for a limited reward, especially not if they're working for free.
tracker1|1 month ago
hansvm|1 month ago
dleeftink|1 month ago
While both can be misused, to me the latter category seems to afford a far larger set of tertiary/unintended uses.
beeflet|1 month ago