Post by @davetron5000@ruby.social

RE: https://indieweb.social/@brentsimmons/117152764013359053

A quote post from @nileane sparked me to re-evaluate this post, and I agree. It's a reductive take that isn't useful or clarifying.

The core thesis is that we can't live our lives free of compromise. But the DEGREE to which each of us must compromise differs. Someone with more power than someone else has the ability to use that power to make different choices. If they don't, they DO deserve criticism.

Brent Simmons

@brentsimmons@indieweb.social yesterday

Tech Choices: https://inessential.com/2026/08/24/tech-choices.html

4 Replies

1 Boost

Paul Hoffer

@phoffer@ruby.social 8 hr. ago

@davetron5000 @nileane I have been wanting to write an article about this concept myself. I think of it as necessary evils and voluntary evils. Similar to the conversation about Rails. It’s one thing to use it. It’s another to prop it up (joining the foundation, being on core team). With an additional aspect of unnecessary good. Ie actively doing something good when it’s not necessary or even disadvantageous.

Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)

@jaredwhite@indieweb.social 7 hr. ago

@phoffer @davetron5000 @nileane I would love to read that article!

Paul Hoffer

@phoffer@ruby.social 2 hr. ago

@jaredwhite @davetron5000 @nileane I have so many things I want to write lol. Primarily 1) the aforementioned post, 2) something that is essentially “I can’t take you seriously if you are pro-AI,” and 3) a software license similar to do no harm license but expanded to prohibit a variety of current things, such as obvious bad actors, and also less obvious bad actors (ie you’re a member of an org whose major public facing people are bad actors. You can probably guess who

Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)

@jaredwhite@indieweb.social 2 hr. ago

@phoffer @davetron5000 @nileane
✅
✅
✅