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

Mission Protocol

missionprotocol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: Mission Protocol

#11

Post by tyre »

woodruffw wrote: post #2

> But these conversations often lose sight of the main way our projects produce social good: through good work on our mission. At the risk of being maybe a little plaintive: what happens when that mission is bad ? It's not clear to this (government-funded) researcher that good (meaning quality) work, even when it's always open-sourced, translates to a good (meaning ethical) mission.

It's also playing into the exhaustive narcissism that some Founder wrote down a Social Mission and the best way to help society is to just work towards it.

As if employees or the culture at the company or conversation about a changing world or taking in new information and adapting (etc. * 100) could have no positive impact.

Re: Mission Protocol

#12

Post by woodruffw »

donatj wrote: post #4

Good is purely subjective. The project by definition targets what the creators thought were good?

> Good is purely subjective.

This is a substantial claim, and requires substantial evidence. Claiming that the Good (meaning the metaethical object) is objective is also a substantial claim, but observe that it's not necessary to be a moral realist to think that things can be, for all practical purposes, bad: in an intersubjective sense, a thing is bad if everybody around you agrees that it's bad.

They can all be wrong (and they frequently are!), but I'm going to go ahead and wager that they're not wrong about civil rights, not drone-striking civilians in other countries, indefinite detention of undocumented migrants, &c &c.

Re: Mission Protocol

#13

Post by aaron695 »

woodruffw wrote: post #2

> But these conversations often lose sight of the main way our projects produce social good: through good work on our mission. At the risk of being maybe a little plaintive: what happens when that mission is bad ? It's not clear to this (government-funded) researcher that good (meaning quality) work, even when it's always open-sourced, translates to a good (meaning ethical) mission.

I thought that strange too, it's something young people obsessive over perhaps? It just opens up the ambiguity again.

It should just be about code (or whatever the project is made of). We need to get back to a system that maximises the project, not bike shedding.

https://missionprotocol.org/codeofconduct/ "Our objective is to focus on the mission we set out to accomplish, which we believe will produce an important social good in the world"

Re: Mission Protocol

#14

Post by wmf »

woodruffw wrote: post #10
wmf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad missions can't be fixed by internal activism, so allowing it just wears down everyone involved.

> Bad companies can't be fixed by internal activism Maybe I'm misunderstanding that you're saying, but wouldn't this imply that unionisation from within ought to necessarily always fail? It's a pretty textbook example of activism, and is generally pointed to as one of the great strengths of the American midcentury.

I updated my comment to clarify. If a company has a neutral mission (like selling cars or something) but treats workers poorly then activism can fix internal issues. If a company's fundamental goal is harmful (tobacco, war, etc.) then I don't think unions can fix that.

Re: Mission Protocol

#15

Post by rsa25519 »

woodruffw wrote: post #10
wmf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad missions can't be fixed by internal activism, so allowing it just wears down everyone involved.

> Bad companies can't be fixed by internal activism Maybe I'm misunderstanding that you're saying, but wouldn't this imply that unionisation from within ought to necessarily always fail? It's a pretty textbook example of activism, and is generally pointed to as one of the great strengths of the American midcentury.

When the GP said "internal activism," I don't think they meant unionization in the sense of worker rights. I think they were referring to workers objecting to projects that hurt other people, rather than workers collectively bargaining wages etc.

Re: Mission Protocol

#16

Post by donatj »

woodruffw wrote: post #12
donatj wrote: post #4

Good is purely subjective. The project by definition targets what the creators thought were good?

> Good is purely subjective. This is a substantial claim, and requires substantial evidence. Claiming that the Good (meaning the metaethical object) is objective is also a substantial claim, but observe that it's not necessary to be a moral realist to think that things can be, for all practical purposes, bad : in an intersubjective sense, a thing is bad if everybody around you agrees that it's bad. They can all be wr…

To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. That's the claim that requires evidence.

Show me the "good particle" and then we'll talk. Until then I can only rationally assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

Re: Mission Protocol

#17

Post by woodruffw »

wmf wrote: post #14
woodruffw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bad companies can't be fixed by internal activism Maybe I'm misunderstanding that you're saying, but wouldn't this imply that unionisation from within ought to necessarily always fail? It's a pretty textbook example of activism, and is generally pointed to as one of the great strengths of the American midcentury.

I updated my comment to clarify. If a company has a neutral mission (like selling cars or something) but treats workers poorly then activism can fix internal issues. If a company's fundamental goal is harmful (tobacco, war, etc.) then I don't think unions can fix that.

I think I understand, but to bring the point home: it's not clear to me that selling cars is, in fact, neutral: they're environmentally destructive (both to manufacture and over the long tail), contribute to unsustainable housing patterns (suburbanization), and are the lynchpin in some of the US's most callous urban development decisions in the last century[1].

This doesn't make an engineer who works at a car startup a bad person. It's just an admonishment to maybe be a little more cognizant of the bigger picture that we're all a part of.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/new-york-sou...

Re: Mission Protocol

#18

Post by cmsonger »

> Mission focus produces social good: Working in a single direction on a strong, well-considered mission is the best way to make a socially positive impact.

Facebook seems like the obvious counter example to this.

The whole statement seems to be: "Trust the business, we know it's going to be good. Ignore the larger societal issues we might be causing."

Re: Mission Protocol

#19

Post by colordrops »

How about just being honest and saying that the main purpose of the company is to make a profit and let's cut the shit with the superficial social and political stances.

It would be great if companies could work towards something greater but the incentives are not aligned with how the system is currently built.

Re: Mission Protocol

#20

Post by crmrc114 »

Seems alright, I don't really think I care for all this masturbating on who has the best CoC. This is a nice way to adopt something that is "Mission Focused".

I recall a small but vocal minority at a large employer I worked with wanted us to kick oil and gas companies off our compute grid. Because oil = evil or some such nonsense. Thankfully sanity prevailed. They noisy people left in protest. I hope they find a good job somewhere that plants trees or something.

Post reply on HN