D
@jaffathecake @froztbyte exactly the same. You don't go around the ethical problem of the absence of authorship by invoking pathos (and borrowing legitimacy from disabled folks is morally sketchy to put it mildly).
Even more so as available technologies are far remote from being able to convey intent, context and nuance. This is misplaced half-baked solutionism.
@jaffathecake @froztbyte you aren't reading a part of the web. The translation was never on the web. Nobody had the opportunity to make sure it's right and nobody ever will. Ethics go farther than privacy.
I don't care if you personally don't use the chatbot feature. The existence of it in the default build will actively normalize and promote it to a userbase larger than the population of Brazil. Is social irresponsibility part of the manifesto here ?
@jaffathecake @froztbyte
To be clear. Making commercial chatbots available as first class citizen of the browser knowing their baggage in terms of ecological and social destruction is OK with you ?
Making non-authored, non-reviewed translations/summaries available as a first-class citizen of the browser doesn't even light an ethical warning ?
These could be available to users *who want them* without being promoted on the level of a standard experience of the web browser, who's denied anything?
