It is illegal and immoral. It steals the rightful intellectual property of directors and developers who are only trying to make a living. If you want to be a thief so badly, then rob a federal bank.
It is illegal and immoral. It steals the rightful intellectual property of directors and developers who are only trying to make a living. If you want to be a thief so badly, then rob a federal bank.
It would be a marvel for sociology, psychology, and philosophy, not to mention biology.
But what everyday problems would it solve, and where would the money for implementation come from? I think it’ll be used to craft the perfect adds to perfectly turn everyone into the sort of person to buy the product being sold at the price that they will barely afford.
That’s also a possibility, but the answers to the meaning of life are only obtained after death. If we can figure out anything that all humans share throughout history and extrapolate meaning from it, that would be a godlike execution of the scientific method. Also, a more comprehensive world history means unearthing very deep perspectives on life.
I accept this an argument for the utility of the internet or collective knowledge (whatever you want to call it) as a historical/anthropological/psychological/etc tool, but to use this as an argument against the morality of privacy is a huge stretch.
It would be hugely beneficial to the field of medicine if we just tested on people for whatever needed researched without concern for their wellbeing or rights, but that doesn’t mean it can be used as an argument against personal wellbeing or personal rights
But it seems like you mostly argued this point to see if you could, so whatever