21–30 of 233 posts
Ex because I really can't be friends with them any longer.
Evil quotes deployed because calling it defense is a farce considering what the systems they are developing are used for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds very much like the "just following" orders defence, also known as "Superior Orders". More details @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is every single job at those companies really making the world worse in a way that other jobs aren't? How about all the technologies and research that have come out of specific teams' work?
I don't know how to respond to this. If you're a software engineer with a typical role at {insert "evil" company here} who is just trying to do the best in their role, are you making the world a better or a worse place? It's not like they're making the product decisions (and that's what I've been telling myself -- they're not the ones making the decisions; they're just implementing them), but it's also not like they…
I don't have an answer and those are rhetorical questions. The point I'm laboring to make is that there are varied levels of culpability. There are also varied levels of evilness.
We like to see the world in binary fashion, I think. This may not be new, but it is getting a lot more visible. Look at the political arena and the divisions between the politically active.
Hmm... How to describe this?
If I make a post that supports the right of Nazis to speak freely, I'm assumed to be as evil as they are (by some) and should be punched in the face. Yet, if I am speaking with White Nationalists and post a comment that supports the right for AntiFa to speak freely, I'm called everything from a Jew to communist.
They don't actually take the time to stop and think that I'm not actually any of those things, that I'm just supporting the right to free speech - for everyone. If I'm not supporting Hillary, I'm supporting Trump - even though I voted for Stein.
So, there are varied levels of evil and good - yet people seem to often focus on the extremes. Is Google evil? Maybe, but they've made mountains of information easily discoverable at no direct financial costs to the end user. Is Facebook evil? Maybe, but they've enabled broad communication with family and friends you might never have had the means to maintain on your own. Is Microsoft evil? Maybe, but they've done more to make the personal computer ubiquitous than any other company.
It's very much a sliding scale and no company is completely evil, as is no one person. Well, except Oracle - they are pretty evil!
I guess where you draw the line is a personal thing and, like the rest, is on a sliding scale. It's easier to try to place things into boxes and label them good and evil, but that's intellectually lazy and not very accurate. Even the most evil companies aren't entirely evil.
shrugs
That's my takeaway, for what it's worth. I also try really hard to not judge or to control. I do have lines that can be crossed, but I try to be understanding and have empathy.
I'm not sure if this helps, but it works for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
The most productive thing: Voice dissent. Ensure the higher-ups have thought through their position and the consequences. Assume they know things you don't. Ultimately, follow the order. Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
There's an extremely interesting thing going on. Observing the mess tech has made does not seem to be related to political affiliation. I know people on the left, right, and center that are all beginning to realize that we're creating a dystopian future, not a happy one.
As a libertarian, I'm concerned that we've created "Knowledge Overlords" with Facebook/Google/Apple/Amazon/etc the likes of which mankind has never seen. They know all, they see all, they tell us what's true or not. And no matter how much they have, they only want more.
Even more disturbing, they're coopting efforts to fix other areas. Don't like Nazis? I don't. Never cared for criminal gangs or terrorists. Some of these folks should be left alone. Some of these folks need action by society. But our overlords have decided that these people should cease to exist. So they're using their huge infrastructure to deploy AI to intercept these people's communications to the rest of us and mute them.
Now whether you like this or not -- and I don't -- let's honestly look at what's happening. These giants are creating a walled garden internet that no new provider could hope to emulate. They've got censors, filters, hoards of people watching cat pictures being posted, on the lookout for a stray boob or white supremacist. Their talking point? They're helping us. They're taking a stand for what's right, helping the internet be a better and safer place. Maybe so. But they're also preventing any new Googles, or any new Facebooks. All they need to do is keep making their filters better and better to the point where the public demands them and they're impossible to reproduce by startups. Competition? Problem solved.
What this tells me is that this nirvana we're in, where people of all political persuasions agree there are serious problems, is not going to last. Instead these companies will position themselves with certain political causes and then anybody who disagrees will be accused of being a political wanker. In my example above, in the states at least, if I tried to defend the ability of loser Nazis to post online, people would automatically lump me in with some group, perhaps the alt-right. The tech companies are taking their quest for domination and turning it into just another political issue -- one that might go for decades unresolved as the usual suspects argue about it.
Right now most all reasonable observers agree there is a problem. We all used to agree on most all of the aspects of the problem. That's decreased to 70-80% agreement as these companies politicize things. Look to see it decrease even further as they continue to "help" us with various social issues they find troubling.
General agreement is being turned into just-another-political issue. In kindness, I think this is because for every thousand really smart SV entrepreneurs, there is but a tiny number of them who actually think about and understand the societal implications of what they are doing. Perhaps these big companies are cynically manipulating the discussion to prevent any action. Perhaps they just don't know. In either case, the effects are the same. Good intentions don't count for much.
There is much darkness here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds very much like the "just following" orders defence, also known as "Superior Orders". More details @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
Also, we have to be honest with ourselves. While we (as a community) were hating Microsoft, we made Google our tech darling. Now they are ethically probably as rotten as Microsoft were in the early ~2000s. We should stop putting companies on pedestals. Then they might suck less talent out of other potential startups, academia, and non-profits and create a healthier economy.
I think practically this means investing in open standards, open source, and open networks (Mastodon for Twitter, MusicBrainz for CDDB, Openstreetmap for Google/Apple maps, etc.). Also, tech people and journalists should continue to expose bad behaviour of companies.
I was a little young but I remember the anti trust case against Microsoft in the late '90s so the tech sector is not immune to it, but why are Google or Facebook out of reach?
It's no mistake that Eric Schmidt is best buds with all manner of high-level USG folks, with Zuckerberg laying the groundwork for political office. Worst case in the latter scenario, Zuck abandons his political ambitions and ends up even more well connected than before.
Not to mention each company's massive annual spend on lobbying, or any of the national security relationships they likely have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
The most productive thing: Voice dissent. Ensure the higher-ups have thought through their position and the consequences. Assume they know things you don't. Ultimately, follow the order. Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I know. But it's also true that if they tried to do the opposite of what they were told (or if they just refused) then they'd get fired. So what do you do?
The most productive thing: Voice dissent. Ensure the higher-ups have thought through their position and the consequences. Assume they know things you don't. Ultimately, follow the order. Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense.
Uhm, no? You have another choice: not working for companies that work as privatised spying agencies.