We're disagreeing mostly on the "personally confirm" point, I believe - I don't believe that that's true in all cases.

I don't think it's unreasonable for wmoore to have assumed that Eliezer had taken care of the moral analysis of this case. (I wouldn't disagree with you if you were suggesting that Eliezer should have checked with us.) Wmoore doesn't obviously know how this group is structured, or what kinds of things we would expect to be consulted about; most online groups are structured in a way that relies much more on the low cost of leaving the group and finding another one to act as a balance for the group owner's considerable power, which makes the assumption that the owner's power should be supported a reasonable one in most cases. (Do you also object to making add-on modules for PhP forums available for forum owners to use with no oversight?)

I would agree that, in general, programmers (and anyone involved in a project) should make sure that there's a balance of power, or that someone is considering the moral implications of the project, or both. In this class of cases (management decisions affecting free, open online groups), I believe that the presence of the former is sufficient. In many of the situations I program for, it's not, and I do make a point of considering the implications of any spec I implement - both because it's part of my job description, and because it's a correct thing to do.

Are we still in disagreement?