Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. Huh? How so? How does acknowledging that people of conscience may be distressed and appalled at the harm their company is doing (making their workplace an uncomfortable place) diminish recognition of that harm? I'm not suggesting that we should care only about such workers, I'm suggesting that should care about everyone . Why is that, in your view, inap…
It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do
I take your point, and it is a valid one.
That said, there's a continuum here. Let's take Clearview AI[0] as an example. The end result of Clearview's activities are absolutely harmful, and I personally wouldn't work for them.
At the same time, not every employee (tech staff or not) is as culpable for the harms caused by Clearview AI's products as others.
What's more, each individual's situation informs their level of comfort/need WRT their employment. Is the dev responsible for front-end UI as culpable as the dev working on the actual facial recognition back end? How about the sales/marketing folks who approach governments and corporations to use their products?
If you have the means/ability to move away from an employer who is causing harm, assuming you see the harm (as the old saw goes, "it's hard to make someone understand something that their paycheck depends on them not understanding.") at all.
Clearview AI is an extreme example, selected specifically for that reason. but in many other cases, "harm" isn't as clear cut. Uber and GrubHub are great examples of that.
Those companies, in some cases, do provide some value, but they do so by extracting (in my view) a level of profit both undeserved based on the service provided, and exploitative of those actually providing real value (rides, food service and deliveries).
Is every Uber or GrubHub employee responsible for that? Should we blacklist them for shirking their "personal responsibility"?
As I said, I take your point, and it is valid it a bunch of cases. But I think there's a continuum here that you're ignoring. Perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case my apologies. If you'd care to expand on your point, I think it would add to the discussion.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/4/22266055/clearview-facial-...