Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Is it actually lying when the only 'entity' that will ever see it is another
computer?
And when there are neither moral or ethical implications? Some might call it a
work-around.
I would argue that there are ethical implications. It is
a User Agent. It acts on my behalf. I do not want it
to lie on my behalf, particularly when there is no need for
it to do so. It could say "Firefox<whatever> compatible",
"Shares code with Firefox<whatever>", "Uses the same
rendering engine as Firefox<whatever>" or any of a million
other valid descriptions, all of which would allow Google
and similar sites to treat it as Firefox. It does not
need to lie.
Ethical implications in the abstract sense of giving people who have misprogrammed
servers a pass for undesirable behavior, perhaps. Okay. On the other hand I don't
think any bad karma attaches to misleading a computer.
If the preferable alternatives you describe fail to work then I'd argue that there IS
a need to 'lie'. On the evidence I'd say SM's developers agree. The downside is that
the malefactors fail to learn, but since we have no apparent leverage in that regard
the point's moot.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
