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

We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#121

Post by jlbnjmn »

Well written, I agree.

I've been thinking a lot lately about two different aspects of this same problem.

We are complicit in our vendor's deeds. If businesses stopped buying ads and server time from these companies, the situation would change rapidly.

We are complicit in our entertainer's deeds. If individuals stopped viewing or engaging with content on these platforms, especially paid content, the situation would change rapidly.

What's someone with a 7-digit annual ad spend to do? (Avoiding social ads is easy, search ads are harder to replace.)

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#122

Post by matchbok »

So much virtue signaling and holier-than-thou in this article. Really embarrassing to read. We make ethical judgements everyday, from eating an apple to driving a car. Does the author use a smartphone built by low-income folks across the ocean? How about other tech, using rare earth minerals mined in horrific conditions?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#123

Post by ori_b »

spaced-out wrote: post #18

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…

The corporations are their workers. The suits are only powerful because we collectively chose to listen to them.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#124

Post by jlbnjmn »

chrismartin wrote: post #52
GoToRO wrote: post #20

We need more developers start companies and not sell out.

I agree but I've seen this not work long-term. Entrepreneurs are inherently curious, distractible, and prone to move on to other projects. Any leader is prone to burnout. I know a small company with a great founder who wanted to support clients, employees, and community as best he could. He did this for a decade, really well, then he got involved in other things which eventually consumed most of his time. For a few y…

A decade of it working is a success! It doesn't have to last forever to have been a great benefit to many people.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#125

Post by MattGaiser »

ori_b wrote: post #123
spaced-out wrote: post #18

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…

The corporations are their workers. The suits are only powerful because we collectively chose to listen to them.

They are their workers AND all the other people who aspire to work for them.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#126

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

RookyNumbas wrote: post #120
spaced-out wrote: post #18

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…

Companies like Amazon were not always in the position you've described. It took decades to get there. And there would have been numerous opportunities along the way where a single engineer could have had a massive impact. A single engineer at Facebook will not make a difference today. 10 or 12 years ago they absolutely could have changed the course of the company. Almost all collective change is spearheaded by the id…

So you're saying Amazon is all my fault? :) [ employee #2 ]

Edit: to be a little less terse, in 1996 I quit working for Amazon. There were multiple reasons, some not connected with the company, but a number that were based on my perception of what sort of corporate culture it was going to be have. And yet ... here we are.

Is there anything I could have done in the 14 months I helped build the initial version of amazon to change how things turned out? Is there anything I could have done after that time if I had stayed? Employee #1 had similar misgivings but stayed for 5 years, and was arguably equally ineffective at altering the "nature of the beast".

So sometimes, even though it appears that we do have the power to either (a) withdraw our labor from an organization (b) remain and voice dissent, it ends up doing no good if the actual leadership is following a clearly defined (in their mind) path.

There will always be enablers for the sort of culture that a company like one of the FAANGs want to build.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#127

Post by meheleventyone »

matchbok wrote: post #91
pimterry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bigcorp programmer, you should absolutely have enough income to be secure from any real discomfort. You're right, you're not secure from all possible reductions in peak earnings. You may sacrifice some potential income and future wealth by switching jobs. There will always be richer neighbourhoods & schools, so that may mean risking a sacrifice in future lifestyle. But that's not the kind of risk that the articl…

Simply not true, at all. When supporting a family that comes first. Always.

A cursory evaluation is enough to dispel this myth. People do all sorts of destructive things to their families all the time. Let alone taking a slight hit to wealth in order to respect your morals.

I personally wouldn’t do it without talking things over with mine but if I felt strongly about leaving a job on ethical grounds I’m pretty sure my family would support that decision. You are after all just another member of the family that also needs support.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#128

Post by abdullahkhalids »

snarf21 wrote: post #42
codesections wrote: post #10

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…

> The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end?

Just draw any line, anywhere; and everyone can draw a different line for themselves. Acknowledging that there is evil is the first step to improvement, and that happens when you draw a line.

The real problematic attitude is to say there is no evil, or if there is evil it is not my responsibility and my decision framework will not include any ethical calculations. Sadly, there are far too many people with this attitude, probably the majority, who make it impossible for the rest to improve the world.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#129

Post by tarkin2 »

spaced-out wrote: post #18

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…

When you help a dubious firm progress, you further that dubious behaviour.

Techies, and everyone else, included.

Edit, re the enlightening discussion below:

You are complicit in your employer’s behaviour, more-so if you are reasonably able to find another job, but decide against it.

Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds

#130

Post by jp555 »

headsupernova wrote: post #106
jp555 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the true power in society is held by a relatively small number of people who hold a massive amount of capital" ... so they can direct collective actions (eg. a free enterprise). So why would your top-down collective action be any different?

they did not imply top-down organization.

I felt they did.

I think we've only ever seen things work sustainably when every individual adopts a particular set of behaviours, but maybe this is mostly just semantics?

Post reply on HN