Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New ethics courses in computer science

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#71

Post by kbenson »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #49

I grew tired of arguments supporting fleecing the users that were basically "We aren't making them do this, they choose to do it." I have heard them put forward at nearly every company I've worked at, at various levels and through various departments. At Google it was always "We don't take an editorial stand, this might be just what some of our customers want." That has been the most interesting aspect of their recen…

> At Google it was always "We don't take an editorial stand, this might be just what some of our customers want."

It's an interesting choice for companies, and Google in particular. Either be proactive and get accused of forcing your customers behavior or having ulterior motives based on money (e.g. Google's ad blocking program), or let them do what they want and get accused of turning a blind eye because it makes more money.

That said, I have little sympathy for Google in this case. They made the choice to go for ad revenue as their business model years ago, and it may have been the most feasible path to success when they did so, but that doesn't mean the perverse incentives weren't obvious at every single step along that path.

I work in the event ticketing secondary markets. That is, I work for a brokerage and buys and sells event tickets for a profit. I mention this because a lot of people have a very negative view of this industry (some of it misinformed, some very well founded in the actions of some bad actors). We run an above-board shop and make money through lots of analytics and targeted investment, and I sleep fine I night. I'm not sure I would if I was employed in certain departments of Google or Facebook.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#72

Post by Maybestring »

peoplewindow wrote: post #36
taurath wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Concerted effort to knock down those justifications and socially shame those that cling to them does work - consider all the people who don’t want to go work for an ad company or a defense contractor, or those who leave with one of the reasons being to escape the industry that they know is wrong.

I think the opposite - people come up with all sorts of justifications for why what other people are doing is wrong . This lets them feel self satisfied, virtuous and perhaps a little smug effectively for free, and if their position is perhaps a little thinly thought out, well, no big deal, it's not like anyone is going to listen anyway. I've watched many attempts to tar entire industries as evil over the years. Inva…

>Good luck affording an internet connection if your daily browsing habit isn't being subsidised by advertisers anymore.

What portion of ISP revenue is from advertising? I suspect it is vanishingly small.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#73

Post by theoh »

KirinDave wrote: post #57
cheeze wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> blockchain sigh

Plenty of people are doing legitimate things in this space. One need only look. Legitimate NON-currency (token or integrity) applications abound. In a very real sense, github was an early blockchain startup. Do you type "sigh" on an internet forum when people talk about github?

The "hub" aspect of GitHub takes a decentralised protocol and adds a trusted third party (github). The whole point of blockchain is to avoid creating trusted third parties, something people like Nick Szabo identified a long time ago as a problem for protocol design.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#74

Post by TallGuyShort »

rafiki6 wrote: post #13

Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. We are business people. The only rules/ethics that govern us are business rules/ethics. Some might argue, "but technology is required for us to survive". It's not. We've survived plenty without it. Technology is required for us to thrive.

My university had us take the same ethics class as civil engineers, etc., and there was plenty of case study material where lax standards in engineering (including computer systems) had killed people. We can live without technology, but it's a lot harder to live when the optional technology that a lot of people choose to use starts killing people. It's important for engineers to understand the role they can and should play in advocating for safety and high standards.

It needn't be a focus of the education, but it should be a concern of universities to ensure students graduate with an understanding of the importance of integrity for society's good and how they can ensure their projects are ethical.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#75

Post by kbenson »

theoh wrote: post #73
KirinDave wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people are doing legitimate things in this space. One need only look. Legitimate NON-currency (token or integrity) applications abound. In a very real sense, github was an early blockchain startup. Do you type "sigh" on an internet forum when people talk about github?

The "hub" aspect of GitHub takes a decentralised protocol and adds a trusted third party (github). The whole point of blockchain is to avoid creating trusted third parties, something people like Nick Szabo identified a long time ago as a problem for protocol design.

But all this is irrelevant to his original point, and how blockchain was referenced within it. People are reacting to the word and their preconceptions and ignoring the point, which is a real shame because those same preconceptions actually strengthen the point being made.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#77

Post by romanovcode »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #32
rafiki6 wrote: post #13

Technologists aren't doctors. Doctors are a necessity because people have an incessant need to stay alive. Technologists aren't a fundamental necessity to society. We are business people. The only rules/ethics that govern us are business rules/ethics. Some might argue, "but technology is required for us to survive". It's not. We've survived plenty without it. Technology is required for us to thrive.

Without technology doctors/medicine would not exist (apart from perhaps foraging for medicinal plants)

The technology which is discussed here is not technology which you are referring to.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#79

Post by theoh »

kbenson wrote: post #75
theoh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "hub" aspect of GitHub takes a decentralised protocol and adds a trusted third party (github). The whole point of blockchain is to avoid creating trusted third parties, something people like Nick Szabo identified a long time ago as a problem for protocol design.

But all this is irrelevant to his original point, and how blockchain was referenced within it. People are reacting to the word and their preconceptions and ignoring the point, which is a real shame because those same preconceptions actually strengthen the point being made.

There's no need to police the direction the conversation takes. I was responding only to the GP, as a matter of fact.

Re: New ethics courses in computer science

#80

Post by nemild »

nostrademons wrote: post #46
nemild wrote: post #11

If useful, I wrote my own thoughts on ethics in software, after reflecting on certain experiences over the years: > A serial tech entrepreneur in Silicon Valley once asked me to design a “social stockade” for his financial services customers. It would lock people out of their social media accounts and tweet out/FB share to their friends when they hadn’t paid a loan. He pitched it to prospective employees as meaningfu…

Interestingly, many microfinance programs that are widely heralded as having lifted many people out of poverty (eg. Grameen Bank, CARE) rely heavily on peer pressure to boost their repayment rates. They lend out to groups within a village, and then if any one member of the group fails to repay the loan, the group can't access more capital. This creates a strong incentive for other members of the group to exert social…

Absolutely, and I say that having worked in microfinance before receiving this request.

But to me, that doesn't mean we engineers can't still draw a line somewhere, especially if we are called on to participate. Just because peer pressure works in some context, it doesn't mean that it is always the right choice, and we need to debate the tradeoffs in different contexts (much like engineers debate tradeoffs in any technical decision).

For example, the easiest way to cut the price of loans down would be to kill anyone if they didn't pay; defaults — and loan costs — would fall dramatically. This would immediately provide loans to many people who are priced out. While that may be useful in some scenarios, it's not a system I personally believe in.

Post reply on HN