Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

When Google's internal turmoil surfaced about the work on Project Jedi, it did not ultimately kill the project[0].

As long as there's someone else still willing to compromise their moral grounds for the value returned, it's still going to get made. That's just how capitalist societies work: People need to make money and someone is going to fulfill that objectional need because they have a need to fill their own coffers.

One need only look at the fervor against Facebook and realise that they still employ over 35k people to understand that, at the end of the day, people are either willing to do the task or they're in a position that they have no other choice (considering that the US doesn't have much of a social safety net).

So, while "conscientious objectors" might be good for a single business direction, it - sadly - does nothing for the overall scheme of things.

...but even if all of the engineers organised in North America to create manifestos, under psuedo or actual unions, which dictated what the future of tech should be used for, this does nothing to dissuade the partners (e.g.: 5Is) from doing the same and then sharing that technology back to their own government.

I concede that maybe I'm misunderstanding the author's intent but to me, the posit seems too idyllic to be fruitful (overall) in modern society.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-23/pentagon-...

It's an uncharitable low-effort comment labeling HN users with differing opinions as mainly motivated by greed. That kind of comment is discouraged by the rules and is why the downvote feature exists.

Many software engineers conscientiously object to working at social or information platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google. They simply have never worked there or tried to work there, just like how most wartime conscientious objectors avoid enlisting in the first place.

Objectors' reasons are diverse and not as unified as NYT makes it seem - some believe that big tech's arbitrary censorship and subtle political bias is immoral, while others believe that big tech's inability or lack of incentive to limit ads, fake news, or distasteful speech is immoral.

I see the point but it is a narrow and modernist characterization of other minds on the matter. A lot of perfectly decent people do defense work and don't really need the paychecks (the famous Youtuber SmarterEveryDay comes to mind). Here are a few reasons why:

1) Many work on oft maligned technologies because they simply see no moral conundrum. It's common to see tools as amoral, and believe moral responsibility in the use of tools for good or evil lies solely with its wielder - not any inventor or refiner.

2) Or, they may see their work as their moral duty as a competent professional in a society fending off morally worse alternatives. This is the patriotic or "necessary evil" view.

3) A few utilitarian engineers see the refinement of technology in and of itself as always a subtle moral good, as they believe the elimination of inefficiency is the primary reason why humanity no longer suffers as much as it used to. There's also the assumption that the development of any kind of tech leads to unanticipated benefits to other areas of life (this is a common demonstrated pattern in defense R&D).

4) There's also the classical Greek justification of Eudaimonia. Simply doing what one does best is seen as the most moral thing one can do, as it eliminates any outward and internal dishonesty about ones self.

PS: Here is a great video by SmarterEveryDay explaining what he does and why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE

> I think Canada has had a professional, and pretty serious, association of engineers (in the traditional sense)

Looks at ring on the pinky of his working hand

Yep.