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

Mission Protocol

missionprotocol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Mission Protocol

#21

Post by jacobr1 »

woodruffw wrote: post #2

> But these conversations often lose sight of the main way our projects produce social good: through good work on our mission. At the risk of being maybe a little plaintive: what happens when that mission is bad ? It's not clear to this (government-funded) researcher that good (meaning quality) work, even when it's always open-sourced, translates to a good (meaning ethical) mission.

I think that idea is you start with a the basis of a mutually agreed upon mission, rather than produce rationalization to retroactively justify the work.

This can be hard if people came to the project for difference reasons and it is an interesting point, because missions can be narrowly or broadly defined. They can be framed in terms of a variety of ends.

But if you can agree on what the common ground looks like ... which might beed a BDFL or steering committee, then you can proceed from that point.

I don't think there is any way to get around the potential for misuse or misappropriation though. Either those concerns are in scope or out of scope of the project. The framing of a mission presumes they are ignored unless explicitly accounted for the in the mission itself.

Is the mission of the Linux Kernel to build a core of a "free" in the GNU/stallman sense OS? Or is to just build a world-class os for diverse environment that just happens to be copy-left licensed as a means to encourage broad participation? If maintainers of proprietary drivers needs more hoo

Re: Mission Protocol

#22

Post by woodruffw »

donatj wrote: post #16
woodruffw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good is purely subjective. This is a substantial claim, and requires substantial evidence. Claiming that the Good (meaning the metaethical object) is objective is also a substantial claim, but observe that it's not necessary to be a moral realist to think that things can be, for all practical purposes, bad : in an intersubjective sense, a thing is bad if everybody around you agrees that it's bad. They can all be wr…

To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. That's the claim that requires evidence. Show me the "good particle" and then we'll talk. Until then I can only rationally assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

> To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good.

Not especially: there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp: the number of people who go hungry, the number of people who die of preventable diseases, &c. These don't require some spooky or transcendental universal fundamental: they're about seeing people suffer in ways that we can measure, seeing that many patterns of suffering are generalizable, and taking actions to countermand that.

(There are also plenty of ethical systems that are both immanent and non-consequentialist. I follow one of them. But it's maybe beyond the point of the original comment to explain them.)

Re: Mission Protocol

#23

Post by woohoojoo »

colordrops wrote: post #19

How about just being honest and saying that the main purpose of the company is to make a profit and let's cut the shit with the superficial social and political stances. It would be great if companies could work towards something greater but the incentives are not aligned with how the system is currently built.

...that would be wrong think.

identity & individualism? that's the new creed being pushed from above. ...only it's not new, it precedes the french revolution. divide and conquer. rule by banking elite, who continue to work to institute neomarxism across nations.

Re: Mission Protocol

#24

Post by renewiltord »

I suspect this is an anti-fragile position, i.e. exposed to varying stressors on a company's purpose, companies that follow this principle will simply sharpen their purpose and objectives and get better at it.

It'll be interesting to see if this is a competitive advantage. Personally, I think it is. I would happily accept a PR from a guy who wants to kill me. He can't kill me or hurt me in a PR.

Personally, I'd also prefer to (metaphorically) drive right off the cliff at full pace with a bunch of people who also think it's the right way than go nowhere because none of us agree on where to go.

Re: Mission Protocol

#25

Post by rhizome »

cmsonger wrote: post #18

> Mission focus produces social good: Working in a single direction on a strong, well-considered mission is the best way to make a socially positive impact. Facebook seems like the obvious counter example to this. The whole statement seems to be: "Trust the business, we know it's going to be good. Ignore the larger societal issues we might be causing."

Facebook lays it out plainly: "Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."

It's so vague as to never be controversial. However, their behavior in the details...the implementation, if you will.

Re: Mission Protocol

#26

Post by seibelj »

colordrops wrote: post #19

How about just being honest and saying that the main purpose of the company is to make a profit and let's cut the shit with the superficial social and political stances. It would be great if companies could work towards something greater but the incentives are not aligned with how the system is currently built.

There is something gross to many people when you just openly say you want to make money and started / work at company to do so. Not to me however - my philosophy sees nothing wrong with working hard and making money. The mission is important to remind yourself out of all the ways to make money you are doing this one. But convincing free people to voluntarily give you money is proof that you are providing true value to the world, which is a great thing.

Re: Mission Protocol

#27

Post by stevehawk »

cmsonger wrote: post #18

> Mission focus produces social good: Working in a single direction on a strong, well-considered mission is the best way to make a socially positive impact. Facebook seems like the obvious counter example to this. The whole statement seems to be: "Trust the business, we know it's going to be good. Ignore the larger societal issues we might be causing."

But people these days don't have tolerance for 'middle of the road' politicking. You're either for or against. There is no grey anymore. Independent thought is no longer allowed. So you either get the 'trust the business' or 'quit doing business and bring all of your personal shit to the office' groups.

Re: Mission Protocol

#28

Post by Ericson2314 »

wmf wrote: post #8
woodruffw wrote: post #2

> But these conversations often lose sight of the main way our projects produce social good: through good work on our mission. At the risk of being maybe a little plaintive: what happens when that mission is bad ? It's not clear to this (government-funded) researcher that good (meaning quality) work, even when it's always open-sourced, translates to a good (meaning ethical) mission.

Bad missions can't be fixed by internal activism, so allowing it just wears down everyone involved.

I would rather Google operate as inefficiently as possible due to internal political fights.

Not what's intended, but works well enough.

Re: Mission Protocol

#29

Post by Nicksil »

paulirish wrote: post #7

A code of conduct template developed by someone who realllly wants to remain anonymous. This inspires trust.

Why do you find it necessary to know who, specifically, is the author of this document?

Re: Mission Protocol

#30

Post by skissane »

donatj wrote: post #16
woodruffw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good is purely subjective. This is a substantial claim, and requires substantial evidence. Claiming that the Good (meaning the metaethical object) is objective is also a substantial claim, but observe that it's not necessary to be a moral realist to think that things can be, for all practical purposes, bad : in an intersubjective sense, a thing is bad if everybody around you agrees that it's bad. They can all be wr…

To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. That's the claim that requires evidence. Show me the "good particle" and then we'll talk. Until then I can only rationally assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

You are assuming naturalism / physicalism / materialism is true.

I agree, that if naturalism / physicalism / materialism is true, then the concept of "objective good" becomes hard to justify. Certainly, some people have tried, but a lot of people question whether those attempts can be successful – indeed, doubting those efforts is one thing that both naturalists who doubt the objectivity of the good, and non-naturalists who believe in the objectivity of the good but reject the idea that it can be given a naturalist foundation, can agree on.

Post reply on HN