Impressive

What was you initial intentions when writing the code? Were you paid to do it for a specific project that was obviously used for “bad”?

You mean you published something on the internet under you real name (which the company probably didn’t notice)?

Thank you for this personal contribution. I like the Robin Hood angle of it.

the building maintenance technician also works for the evil company

Yes

you’re asking if they’re just as guilty as the software engineer that worked to create the evil product?

Or the opposite, if they are as free from guilt as the maintenance guy.

That’s kind of the origin of my question, does this thinking about the technician extends to someone more involved in the product made, such as an engineer?

I am talking about morality rather than legality. No doubts the owners are more guilty, but that’s an easy consensus here. I’m more interested in the opinion of the many software engineers who participate here.

I’m assuming they both work at same “evil” company.

Yes

Did the roof collapse despite numerous warnings from the maintenance staff about structural issues? If the worker failed to report outside the company, yes there is some fault on them for inaction.

Let’s say there is no issue regarding maintenance, everything is safe, the building technician is only “guilty” of helping an “evil” company run.

If the company ordered some cyrpto mining baked into their software, then the developer who accepted the task and implemented it would share guilt.

So it’s more about directly working on something bad?
I guess that means people working directly on the chain of personal data exploitation at the tech giants are more guilty.

Let’s take what may be the average software engineer on Lemmy or Reddit. So I would guess:

• Do they know the company is evil? Yes
• if so, do they agree with what the company is doing? Some yes, like the cutting edge tech, some no, like the personal data harvesting or undermining democracy.
• if not, do they have any viable alternate options? Yes, many other options but with less money making.

I don’t think so, just activists who like to complain about not enough people being aware of the alternative.

Is this why the population of Japan is decreasing that badly? 🤔

The framing is having it on Charlie Hebdo and knowing what is their style. When people take it out of this context and with no knowledge of local politics, it will easily look racist. The same happens with a satirical comment here, take it out of context and present it at a family dinner, it will not be received the same.

Let me take an up voted comment from here as an example.

Ugh. Bougie homeless. Just sleep in your car like normal people. 🙄

Didn’t really get the gypsy reference, so I looked it up, Charlie directly answered to the emotion it caused here: https://charliehebdo.fr/2018/06/societe/ je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-halep / (the paywall can be bypassed with reading mode). Basically, they are saying that what they did is a satire of French people prejudices against Romanian people. They often do that, they reuse the words/prejudices of the people they criticize in a satirical setting to mock it, though without knowing Charlie’s culture, it’s difficult to interpret. Consider it as the equivalent of “/s” at the end of a comment here.

This seems to be from 1979 and I can’t find any description to explain the context. But it mentions oil, so I would guess it is a satire of politicians talking about going to war with Arabic countries over oil prices. Would you have the historical context?

Do you think they wanted to bully the minority rather than the islamists?

Indeed, that’s why those cartoons don’t target Muslims but the islamists or politicians (Islamism is a political ideology) who try to influence others.

I think what they do is really different from the people in this thread posting offensive cartoons for the sake of freedom to do so. In fact, freedom of expression is much more regulated in France than in the USA. If you post racist content with no indication that it is a satire or some other good intention, you can get condemned for racism. The former leader of the far right party Le Pen who just died yesterday have been convicted multiple times for his racism in the media.

This is a satire of right wing politics (which Charlie notably opposed) claiming that poor people make more babies to get more social welfare, with denounciation of islamist organization Boko Haram using women as sex slaves, both mixed to create absurd comedy.
Explain what you find racist about this.

Do you think they fought in Syria to promote freedom and democracy or to promote an Islamist system?
How does killing cartoonists, who are notably against conservatives, helps with decolonization? They should hit some far right journal that denies colonization crimes instead.

Do you mean Charlie’s cartoons were as racist as Nazi propaganda?

Charlie mostly draws satire of people in power or with influence. Do you think they only do that to be offensive?