I am not following the authors argument. This logic accidentally gate-keeps opinions of people with ethical objections, people who can't afford the time and money to use it and even people for whom the tool is inaccessible.
Any objection "This tool is built on stolen data" doesn't change based on whether I have used the tool for 50 hours or not.
By defining a "center" only through the lens of usage we don't find objectivity. This sounds like rationalising survivorship bias for those who are able to pay and participate.
Author here: ethical concerns are legitimate and they don’t require contact. You’re right that the center is not just skewed because of the arguments I made but also because of other factors such as the availability of money and time.
I’m not disputing that. The argument in the article is a much narrower one: use. It’s that without use, one’s view of how it behaves in practice is second-hand from the people that engage.
If all ones criticism is confine within ethical or monetary concerns then this article does not apply.
Everyone's biased. If you don't think you're biased you just haven't identified the bias yet.
For example 'the center'
You are already talking about a subset of (probably English speaking) programmers let alone the population at large. So that's a bias there. And you've chosen the centre, other people may not agree with where you've put the centre. I for example am accused of being right wing and left wing. Presumably the accusers didn't think I was in the centre.
Having said all this, I do agree with your points, I don't think you'll have much luck actually improving the level of conversation though.
I am not following the authors argument. This logic accidentally gate-keeps opinions of people with ethical objections, people who can't afford the time and money to use it and even people for whom the tool is inaccessible.
Any objection "This tool is built on stolen data" doesn't change based on whether I have used the tool for 50 hours or not.
By defining a "center" only through the lens of usage we don't find objectivity. This sounds like rationalising survivorship bias for those who are able to pay and participate.
Author here: ethical concerns are legitimate and they don’t require contact. You’re right that the center is not just skewed because of the arguments I made but also because of other factors such as the availability of money and time.
I’m not disputing that. The argument in the article is a much narrower one: use. It’s that without use, one’s view of how it behaves in practice is second-hand from the people that engage.
If all ones criticism is confine within ethical or monetary concerns then this article does not apply.
That's how the center ends up bigoted against people who need more-complicated-to-understand accessibility. It's pernicious.
That’s very possible! But right now I think the bigger risk is that the center is biased towards people with time and money.
Everyone's biased. If you don't think you're biased you just haven't identified the bias yet.
For example 'the center' You are already talking about a subset of (probably English speaking) programmers let alone the population at large. So that's a bias there. And you've chosen the centre, other people may not agree with where you've put the centre. I for example am accused of being right wing and left wing. Presumably the accusers didn't think I was in the centre.
Having said all this, I do agree with your points, I don't think you'll have much luck actually improving the level of conversation though.