41–50 of 192 posts
Look, if you want all your crying and personal opinions to actually mean something start someplace rational. Start by asking (demanding) for a uniform of code of ethics. Every other professional industry has this, but not software.
I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons: First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far wor…
The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse? Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies? We can all do more to make the world a better place but each individual has to decide their own thresholds. It is impossible for each of us to stand against all the evils in the world. Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be stopped. Most people just want to provide for their family and live their life. Not everyone can (or wants to) be a social justice warrior. It is a very complicated issue and I think we paint it too black and white at times.
The answer to employer abuse is not isolated people refusing to work at big tech companies. You have very little power alone and while refusing to work for a company you find objectionable may ease your conscience, it does little to affect change (unless you’re in a position with a lot of power like Tim). The solution is organization —- forming a union, or banding together behind a political organization or political…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Graveyards are full of indispensable men”. — Charles de Gaulle.
Wow, that's an awesome quote. I Googled it out of interest, and it wasn't coined by Charles de Gaulle though: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/21/graveyards-full/
I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons: First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far wor…
Ot, but I'm not sure I get this: google maps tracks most people all the time. Are they suddenly concerned about the privacy implications when it's about a temporary, non commercial product meant to manage a pandemic and handled by democratically elected governments instead of a multinational corporation?
We technologists like to pretend we're powerful, that we could bring these giant megacorps to their knees because those fancy suits need us, right? No. They need an engineer, not any one specific engineer. Companies like Amazon reject many candidates that could probably do the job they applied for, but were rejected because they can afford to be picky. If anything changes at Amazon it not be because of the loss of th…
This is why unions exist: to enable collective action by workers. Maybe if we call it a "guild" (like the screen actors guild) it'll be more palatable to software developers who fancy themselves beyond the need for something as blue-collar as a union.
Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
That was sort of the entire point of the writing. Because tech folks are in a privileged class, they have the ability to move jobs based on morals. And therefore they should. Not doing that, when you are making as much as you are as a programmer at BIGCORP means you are complicit in the bad behavior. That was the entire point. He addressed your concern in the first two paragraphs.
This argument only holds water when you're making a lot of money relative to the cost of living where you live.
Most software engineers, even at FANG, aren't really earning that much relative to cost of living. A $70k salary in most of the rest of the country buys you a better quality of life and allows you to better support your family than $180k in the SF Bay Area. You also need to remember that as you go up in salary, the government takes more and more of each incremental dollar.
My older brother for example is an out of work chef and married to a nurse and lives in another state. He has a nicer house and is raising two kids, while my partner and I gross about 3-4x what they are earning.
I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons: First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far wor…
I agree that we have a moral line we can decide to cross at work or not. We can step in and say "this isn't right". We all have our own limits. If a company passes our line, we can decide to stay and be a dissenting voice in a sea of "yes men" or we can move on. The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Faceboo…
Yes.
>Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies?
Yes.
>Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be stopped.
Not me. I don't think this is right, and I don't appreciate the attempts at the normalization this idea. Don't be the 'Good German'.
Facebook may be bad for privacy, but communities of all sorts get together and old friends reconnect on their platforms. Instagram brings beauty to lots of people. Remember how things were before that? I do. It was much worse. Is it worth the price? That's for everyone to decide for themselves (and for lawmakers to enforce).
But saying that all bigcorps are evil and nobody should work for them is a VERY simplistic view of the world.