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

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Mission Protocol

#31

Post by woodruffw »

renewiltord wrote: post #24

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…

> 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.

We might be inclined to ask ourselves what it would have looked like for lunch counters in 1958 to have done the same, and why that doesn't fly now.

Re: Mission Protocol

#32

Post by aazaa »

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ...

This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance.

Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security.

Following the Mission Protocol seems like a thinly-disguised attempt to get workers to subject themselves to someone else's agenda.

I mean, isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means? Every mission is political in one way or another.

Re: Mission Protocol

#33

Post by skissane »

woodruffw wrote: post #22
donatj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fundame…

> there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp

The problem with all those theories, is they can be attacked as simply efforts to define "good" – with the ensuing problem that other people will define "good" in contrary ways, and if "good" is just a definition, then how can a mere definition be, in an objective sense, superior to a competing proposed definition?

That's basically G. E. Moore's argument against naturalistic objective ethics. If one agrees with it, then the only options available are to reject objective ethics, or to reject naturalism.

Re: Mission Protocol

#34

Post by iongoatb »

Politics have been destroying Silicon Valley. This restores my faith in tech. I believe that the spirit of innovation and diversity of thought still has a chance to prevail if people embrace the philosophy behind Mission Protocol. If employees want to be activists, then they should either pursue activism in their free-time, change their career to further the cause full-time, or create a company with a mission that furthers their agenda. There's no judgement. However, hijacking the mission of large, powerful companies to serve near-sighted political agendas is socially destructive and morally reprehensible.

Re: Mission Protocol

#35

Post by not_a_moth »

> First, a mission statement to define and guide the project, and second, a contact email to ensure violations can be reported.

Having been an employee where partisan politics are brought up in the workplace, I applaud that it seeks to provide actual teeth.

Re: Mission Protocol

#37

Post by skissane »

donatj wrote: post #4

Good is purely subjective. The project by definition targets what the creators thought were good?

I don't agree with you that good is purely subjective.

But, in practice, what is good is highly contested, and open to philosophical and political debate. In some ways, something which is objective but very difficult to know with certainty is difficult to practically distinguish from the subjective.

If I am running an open source project, I would like to welcome contributions from people who have widely differing ideas of what the "good" is. Participation in the project should not require a general agreement on what is good, or even a general agreement on what the good is (in philosophical terms), simply an agreement on the bare minimum of shared ethics necessary for the project to successfully function.

Re: Mission Protocol

#39

Post by iongoatb »

aazaa wrote: post #32

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ... This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance. Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security. Following the Mission…

This protocol is meant for non-government agencies, i.e. tech companies. Don't obfuscate the intended purpose of this protocol. There are well-defined, existing whistleblower protocols in government for situations that Snowden encountered.
Post reply on HN