In the wake of left wing alternative media gaining momentum, and left wing representatives and candidates enjoying huge public support, Microsoft now wants regulation on platforms.
Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
231–240 of 240 posts
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it seem like some weird fringe view funded by a handful of people. To the contrary, it’s been the dominant mode of public policy since the 1980s across the whole western world. Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Howard, Harper, etc. Even Trudeau and Macron, who are ostensibly left-leaning, are doubling down on privatization and deregulation: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2016/nov/... ; https://f…
>who are ostensibly left-leaning They absolutely are not. They're capitalists, neoliberals, in all senses. There are no left wing economic policies being created anywhere in the western world right now.
They would have to be, because they favor deregulation. You can't define your way out of an argument. If "everyone in the western world" operates this way, you're making his point for him.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#233Why can't big tech self-regulate? Why must it always be a solution that depends on big government instead? Why should anyone trust the government given the last few thousand years of history?
Because competitors must play by the same rules. Self-regulations are internal rules. When one wants to put a rule on that will drive up cost or decrease profits, they will only do it if the competitors do the same. That is why they need a 3rd party regulator, where they can go and agree on rules.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop pushing the blame upstairs. If you knowingly build software that hurts people, you share the blame. The job market for programmers has never been better. "My boss told me to do it" is not an excuse. I, for one, hope more engineers involved in fraud (eg VW), privacy breaches (eg Facebook) etc get tried and punished. It might help make programmers realize that yes, your work actually affects real humans and yes, y…
Not very realistic for people who need to put food on the table and where the evil vs non evil is not that clear. Especially if you work on a very small cog in the machine, which most engineers do ofcourse. Where do you draw the line? Maybe your company makes software that is nice but it is sold to companies using it for evil? I think this is too vague and not solvable by engineers unless in clear cut cases like you…
FWIW my opinion on this isn't actually as black and white as my earlier comment might make it seem. I'm well aware that not everybody is in a position to quit their jobs over something as vain as ethics. That's classic Bertolt Brecht right there, "Food comes first and then morality".
I'm mostly just frustrated that vast swathes of developers, most of them like me living a comfortable life in a comfortable place with plenty of options, are happy to condone and support the evils their employer commits. Plenty of people look at me like I'm an alien when I say I refuse to work for a weapons manufacturer. So I get worked up when people hide behind their bosses and pretend that developers, perhaps the most influential people of the next few decades, are nothing but amoral code machines. No we're not, we're people and we have a choice.
It's not very black and white at all. I personally wouldn't work for Google of Facebook for moral reasons, but I understand that some people say "well, we're targeting ads, not cluster bombs" and they have a point. I'm asking that people consider whether their work fits their own personal ethics. I'm asking that people look around for better jobs when they discover that, deep inside, when they really think about it, no, their current job does not fit with their own ethics. I'm convinced that large numbers of developers would go and look for alternatives if we make it common to just do this thought exercise. I think many people simply don't consider it. After all, there's a fun team and exciting tech!
I don't think that's too much to ask. But when we propagate the idea that developers are mindless robots that turn money into code, we're letting psychopaths take more advantage of us than necessary. Let's try to move the needle, just a bit.
Sidenote: yeah TUE with the Dijkstra apostles was fun, loved the handwriting :-) When were you there? 2002-2008 here. I recognize how the Dijkstra ideals could be extrapolated to ethics by a particularly zealous crowd, but I agree with you that it doesn't hold up to the real world for a long while :-)
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried using linux on a personal computer? You might be surprised!
I have. It just doesn’t get the ‘f*ing job done’ unlike Mac or Windows. Don’t get me wrong, I use Linux extensively. I spend nearly half of my computer time on a SSH terminal. I just hate the graphical part of it.
Funny, I feel the exact same way about windows and osx. OSX isn't as bad, but both pale in comparison to my linux computers.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes it is not clear cut. Getting the same result in different ways can legal or not: Obvious example: Saving a x amount of money from taxes using a legal loophole is legal. An exact equal company trying to save the exact same amount of money by lying to is doing something illegal. Far less obvious example: Around here (and possibly elsewhere, I don't know) if you make a drink from wine and spirits you have to p…
A curious alcohol law with an interesting side effect. Where are you located?
Norway.
I thought it was an old joke, but someone I have reason to believe said it was true and you could get in trouble for it.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many young engineers can't see societal potential in what they do. Then they are defective citizens. Citizenry before a job is just not that complicated. Everyone is complicit in dirty work and I've very happily fired clients and quit jobs for being dirty. Do thou likewise or have your fellow citizens find you wanting for it. It's not hard.
The problem here is dirty isn't well-defined. You are playing the moral superiority card without knowing what your particular moral/ethical line is. Seems HN is primarily comprised of people without families that can just quit their job and it's not big deal, all in the name of their particular set of moral standards. You can tell when they say things like "it's not hard" when deciding to quit their job. For the fast…
Yup. We could argue every bit of marketing is evil. So much of it is targeted at children or people that are otherwise easy to convince to buy shit they probably don't need, and based on US retirement savings, probably can't afford.
I worked in free to play games for a time and I rationalized you could get entertainment value up to a point and if you wanted more you paid. However, we all know certain people can't stop at that point. Same reason why casinos flourish.
Ethics CAN be clear cut but even things like drones or surveillance equipment can have both good and evil applications.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
This oversimplified "regulation is bad" idea is pushed by a lot of think tanks (e.g. CATO, americans for prosperity, freedomworks, heritage foundation) set up by the Koch brothers. They have close links with the media, which is why these weirdly specific views get parroted a lot. If you've ever read a story about the evils of hairdresser licensing (for instance), it's from them. They have been on a crusade against re…
This oversimplified "regulation is good" idea is pushed by a lot of think tanks (e.g. Brookings, center for american progress, The Commonwealth Institute) set up by the Soros and Clintons. They have close links with the media, which is why these weirdly specific views get parroted a lot. If you've ever read a story about the evils of low taxes (for instance), it's from them. They have been on a crusade for regulation…
>This oversimplified "regulation is good" idea is pushed by a lot of think tanks (e.g. Brookings, center for american progress, The Commonwealth Institute) set up by the Soros and Clintons.
It's not though. They make a case for certain kinds of regulation and they don't try to tell a "all regulation is good" story.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. The idea that whatever you are asked to do has been vetted by others is an abdication of ethical responsibility. At present, a lot of what tech companies do is still legal, but that doesnt make it right. It's still legal because the maps of cyber law are largely still uncharted. An engineer working on a project that tracks user behavior without consent (for example) shouldn't be absolved or responsibility b…
Sometimes it is not clear cut. Getting the same result in different ways can legal or not: Obvious example: Saving a x amount of money from taxes using a legal loophole is legal. An exact equal company trying to save the exact same amount of money by lying to is doing something illegal. Far less obvious example: Around here (and possibly elsewhere, I don't know) if you make a drink from wine and spirits you have to p…
Last point is hilarious! Can't upvote that enough.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither engineers not execs really make decisions to be good or evil. They implement the will of major shareholders who actually run the company. Satya Nadella has maybe 100s of millions, while the capitalization of MS is 1 trillion. This means that Satya isn't the decision maker. Only in small companies CEO and the owner is the same person.
this is complete nonsense that denies the factual agency these people absolutely have.
This is plain truth, not nonsense. You can go and start a corporation any time. If it appears successful, you need to hire a CEO and a bunch of other people. At that time you'll own nearly all preferred shares that give control. Despite CEO will get maybe 5% and will run the company, according to laws, preferreds will give you a final say in everything and you can fire that CEO at any time. This is even more true with big execs: they hold nowhere near 5%.