this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
1550 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
3658 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not asking you to care. What I'm saying is that you're morally inept by not caring. Either you admonish theft across the board or you don't. People are stealing from someone else regardless of who they are.
You don't have to care, you're just wrong.
Theft is too vague to be given a blanket right/wrong verdict for all situations.
Failure to recognise nuance is morally inept.
We have courts and juries specifically because morality is not a hard rule.
This particular tack definitely seems to be the main flavor of responses to my comment at this point.
It is a really strange logical conclusion that many of you have arrived at.
What it sounds like you're saying is that if the theft is morally correct, then it is somehow no longer theft and is perfectly justified. That is a very strange argument to make in the first place.
That is not how morality works. That is not how anything works.
If a starving person steals bread, they may have a morally compelling justification for their actions. We can debate whether that theft was ethically permissible under those circumstances. But they still committed theft. The act itself does not magically stop being theft because we understand or sympathize with the reason behind it.
The distinction between whether an action is understandable, justified, or morally excusable has been debated since the time of the Greeks.
What? By that definition nothing is theft unless ruled such by a court. Which funnily also means that if someone takes anything but doesn't get caught, they haven't committed theft?
Ergo any corporation powerful enough cannot commit any crimes, due to not being sentenced.
That's bullshit and you know it.
This isn't about if the guys stealing the copper committed a crime or not. Obviously they removed property without consent, which is theft.
However, is there such thing as "good" crime? Yes. Same as the mother stealing formula for her baby, or the homeless person stealing bread, or these guys stealing copper from AI data centres.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.