The tools themselves are morally neutral.
Discussion
Microsoft and apple collecting personal data are morally neutral?
If the individual consents, then yes.
I do not use Microsoft because I do not agree to their terms.
I agree to give Apple a limited set of data for internal usage.
But even here, please note: I am speaking only about the tool as a morally neutral object. A phone is a moral neutral, as is a firearm, as is a gun.
The individual does not read the whole contract nor is aware of the long time data mining. But then ignorance is an excuse, but IMO iOS and Microsoft are not neutral because not honest about how they collect and use personal data.
Dunno if you saw my second comment here, but I'm not talking about the morality of the companies involved. Just the morality of the tool itself: a gun is a moral neutral. A phone is as well.
When we choose chainsaws or pens or pencils, we choose them because they do a good job and get out of our way.
Yes but don't agree that some OS or software are simple tools like a car, pen or pencil. There's much more implications on the use.
I think we agree that companies can take the concept of a phone and then use it for negative ends -- but that's the reality of a moral neutral. You can take a gun and do very evil things with it.
In the end, what I think important here is that there need be no tradeoff when it comes to protecting privacy and building a great tool.
When I used PGP as a kid, it meant I could email two people I knew with relative safety. That's because it forced a tradeoff in terms of usability and technical knowledge.
I now use Signal to chat with pretty much everyone in my world. Everyone in my family. That's because it's simple. It's the very definition of a "good tool," in that you pick it up and just use it and don't think about the tool itself.
GrapheneOS is an example of a tool approaching this point, although it'll always have small technical barriers. It is very stable, and "just works."
So, when developing "freedom" or "privacy" tools, whatever we want to call them, we have to keep this in mind. If they challenge the average user, they will always fail to accomplish what we want them to, and we'll have to settle for the false belief that privacy involves tradeoffs. Moxie succeeded with Signal because he'd learned this lesson by growing up in the same environment I did.
A gun depends exclusively on the actions of the owner, a phone (stock android or ios) depends on the actions of the user but still there's a relationship with the builder/manufacturer.
If people choose usability and utility over privacy, the incentives are huge for data mining as things are those days. I don't see a solution unless more and more people choose privacy over utility with some tradeoffs, just like using sats instead of fiat.
Again: victory only comes one way here.
Reject the false "utility over privacy" dilemma, and start making privacy tools that are useful, and meet the definition of a good tool in general. If an app or an OS or a device or a hammer "gets out of the way," it will be easier for people to adopt, and the incentives to stay with iOS, or Google, or the privacy infringers, disappears.
I used to watch a weekly Linux show, which highlighted various developments in the operating system. It was a great show. It was also produced on a Mac, on Final Cut, because Linux had nothing that came close to the utility of this tool at that time.
If "privacy" means using bad tools, people won't use them. I won't use them either, because I no longer have time to spend on tools.
Thankfully, this is not what privacy *has* to mean. We can build good tools that are also privacy-preserving. There doesn't have to be a tradeoff.