The argument, without ambiguity, is essentially that because the developer is morally tainted you should not use the software. That just doesn’t follow, and the argument itself distracts from taints any real concerns about the product itself.
Agreed a bit, not fully, but if someone is against it, then there is already a bias. For someone who is not involved and not against it, just want to compare them, I argue that person might not know and understand it completely. So a bias is natural. So taking that as an argument to discount the credibility, I am not entirely on board. However if someone is so much biased, that it looses all judgement of positive and negatives, and only provides one side of the story, then I am 100% on your side of opinion.
My complaint is that the argument from OP is bad.
The argument, without ambiguity, is essentially that because the developer is morally tainted you should not use the software. That just doesn’t follow, and the argument itself distracts from taints any real concerns about the product itself.
Agreed a bit, not fully, but if someone is against it, then there is already a bias. For someone who is not involved and not against it, just want to compare them, I argue that person might not know and understand it completely. So a bias is natural. So taking that as an argument to discount the credibility, I am not entirely on board. However if someone is so much biased, that it looses all judgement of positive and negatives, and only provides one side of the story, then I am 100% on your side of opinion.