[dead]
Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
191–200 of 225 posts
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#192I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.
What is the problem again? You used google while signed in and now the world knows you like barbies? Serious question, because I do not feel violated.
1) you signed into your work's google account on a personal laptop.
2) you quit the browser
3) three days later you open the browser to search for a new job
4) Depending on your works settings, they now know that you are looking for a new job.
-or-
1) you have work gmail on your phone (stupid idea, but hey)
2) Work now has admin control over your phone, with the ability to remote wipe, backup and inspect.
3) fatfinger/perv/abusive admin can now do what ever they will to your personal life.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#193I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.
This is a burden that lies with us all, individually. We are all individually responsible for our actions. Its absurd to suggest that somehow we should outsource our morality and the responsibility for our actions to politicians or legislators. Whether or not our system (and society) is horribly broken on every level (it is) has no bearing on the personal responsibility we all bear for what we do as individuals.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#194I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.
The core of the problem is that the masses do not have shared values anymore. There are no moral ideals to aim towards. Without values there is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.
But we do all have shared values. In fact, I think we all agree on most of everything. Imagine there was a button you could press where each and every person would suddenly receive at least a nice house, a bit of land to call their own, and a pleasant good paying job. There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button. Another button to get rid of all crime? Yip, gonna be pushed. Another to get rid of all poverty? Everybody wants the exact same things. The only thing we disagree on is the best route to get there.
That said, I completely agree with you that there is a perception of the lack of any shared value. So why might this be? The 2016 election was interesting. How many people voted for Hillary thinking 'Yes, this person truly stands for what I believe in and will make a phenomenal president.'? How many voted for her because the alternative was completely unthinkable. And the exact same holds true for those that voted for Trump. Think about what a remarkable bit of social engineering that is. In a democracy, you've managed to get tens of millions of people to vote for people they don't actually like or event want in office. And all you had to do was to make people loathe, and fear, the alternative sufficiently.
Division helps entrench establishment forces. You can even see this in the choice of which issues get elevated to the national level. What is the weapon most typically used in mass homicides? What percent of homicides are rifles used in? I think the majority of Americans would get these questions completely wrong. Because the issues that we elevate paint a picture that is not in accordance with statistical reality. That reality being that pistols are the primary weapon of mass homicides, and with rifles being responsible for about 2% of all homicides. [1] Our homicide rate is driven by cheap little pistols. The year to year variance in pistol homicide is frequently larger than the entire sum of all rifle homicides. In other words if we had a magical button to get rid of all rifles, "assault" or not, you wouldn't even notice a drop in the homicide rate. It'd be statistical noise.
But the issue is promoted because it's extremely divisive. It makes people fear and hate one another and further drive this perception that we have no shared values. And what that translates to is at the polls you won't vote for who you want, but will instead vote against who you do not want. And that translates to voting for the establishment candidate who, by definition, will have shown themselves to be the most 'electable'. And then we all end up disappointed, and then do this again 4 years later. Only this time the establishment candidate is truly different, honest! Or in the case of an incumbent, they'll actually do what they've been promising now - they just need 4 more years, honest!
[1] - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#195I've long thought that tech needs like.. a guild or trade union, or a professional association of some kind. The problem though, is that it's so easy to get into, so there's no easy way to "police" ourselves, because tech has been democratized so well-- Anyone can do a code boot-camp and be up and running within weeks. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes it harder to hold developers to a code of ethics or anyt…
The UK has the British Computer Society -- though I'm not actually sure what purpose they serve.
I was a student member for a couple of years, but beyond the occasional Government IT job advert which required BCS qualification and accreditation, they seem to be extremely quiet (or not very good at advertising).
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#196Compensation, including perks, is usually very good in tech in comparison to many other industries. Most people rationalize and convince themselves that they're not really doing bad things, and that it's someone else who's the problem. In some companies, the culture is also that of being oblivious (or acting oblivious) to the harm caused by the work. Facebook is the best example of this. Has there been any conscienti…
I doubt anyone sensitive to the privacy issue would apply to work at facebook in the first place. Even if the technology and know-how might be promising.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> the person who forced him out Worth noting that probably everyone here has seen something like this happen. Not sure if it is specific to tech, but some of the egos and pathologies are extreme.
I have never seen up close someone risking and losing their livelihood over moral issues with a business. It clearly does happen, but I would have assumed it to be rare, maybe more so in IT. So if you or GP have some details they can share about cases you witnessed, I'd love to hear.
Oh, I meant more generally seeing someone getting forced out by a single other person in the organization.
I think taking a moral stance usually leads people to move on of their own volition, as they tend to know the rules (and want them followed) and don't want to be associated with the fall out or with an organization that enforces them selectively.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
This counterfactual would be more convincing if the UK did not ban slavery before the US did, and did not need a civil war to do it. And it is just as easy to praise someone when you're not the one they're hurting.
The UK may have banned slavery early on, but the US was the first of many British colonies to gain independence, something which took a few hundred years for the UK to relinquish world-wide. Colonization was a milder form of slavery, but oppressive none the less.
It's not like the American colonies gained independence because they were just that special compared to everyone else.
They did it because France (a major power) helped them to do it (France being at war with Britain at the time). Without France the American revolution would have failed.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might have misunderstood me. Those leaders are not going to respect whatever ethics are set up and will ensure their own developers do what they are told irrespective of this effort. Calling out those leaders isn’t an affront to their citizens any more than calling out George W (or Obama or Trump) is an affront to Americans.
My apologies, I did indeed misunderstand - didn't realize it was a reference to the leaders specifically.
[deleted]
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's low on words but dense with meaning. If you want to interpret it as calling out greed, so be it, but I think that good money is hard to turn down for many reasons besides greed. Is it greedy to want to pay off your student loans or provide for your family? There are many people with stories of being unable to find work because they can't hack the modern coding interview process. One way to escape that trap is to…
> Is it greedy to want to pay off your student loans or provide for your family?
Perhaps not greedy, but definitely selfish.
It's YOUR student loans and YOUR family (thus, YOUR genetic code) that you're helping without regard for anyone else.
Don't pretend like only helping yourself and your spouse/children is anything other than self-serving.
Self-serving is fine in moderation, but a lot of people foolishly seem to hold it as an axiomatic good.