3 ms·

It's true all human beings - including software engineers - need to think about ethics and to avoid participating in human rights abuses. But the "Never Again"

It's true all human beings - including software engineers - need to think about ethics and to avoid participating in human rights abuses. But the "Never Again" pledge is a simplistic, knee-jerk way to do that. Refusing to build a database of people based on their ethnicity or religion sounds like a good idea when you think of the possible abuses it can be used for. But the US census gathers precisely that information, and (almost) no one freaks out about it. Google and Facebook already have that information, and (almost) no one freaks out about it. The only reason someone is freaking out now is because Trump was elected. Now, that might make sense - maybe a normally harmless database will be put to horrible use by him. He has said horrible things. But he's also shown a lot of what he says isn't intended literally. We do need to be careful and vigilant. But "Never Again" isn't a good way to do that. Another issue is with this kind of thinking: > But history tells us that, whether you do it humanely or not, this kind of large-scale human rights abuse requires huge numbers of people working together with the full knowledge that they are committing human rights abuses. No, as Hannah Arendt and many others have shown, large-scale human rights abuses often do not involve lots of people consciously doing evil. Instead, they usually think there are good reasons for what they do.

idlewords 10y ago
The census collects anonymized information, and does not use it to "target individuals". The pledge does not apply there. People are absolutely freaking out about Google and Facebook collecting this data. I don't know why you think this (almost) isn't happening.
- brighteyes 10y ago
  A tiny, tiny amount of people freak out about Google and Facebook's massive data collection. Not enough to be noticeable in the market shares of those companies' products.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    The interesting metric is how many of their employees are getting worried enough to take collective action. And that number is not negligible.
elihu 10y ago
> The only reason someone is freaking out now is because Trump was elected. This is a good point. A lot of things that might have seemed sort-of reasonable under president Obama/Bush/Clinton are scarier under president Trump, and those things that were built in the past during different presidents remain in existence. So, when considering whether it's a good idea to build such tools, it's important to consider future worst-case scenarios, rather than freak out about what we've already built when it's too late. I think a good test to apply is: "what would the House Un-American Activities Committee have done with this tool" and if the answer is scary, then that tool probably shouldn't be built. (I realize that Facebook would definitely fall into the category of "really scary tools", and yet I still grudgingly use Facebook because it's convenient for some things.)
anigbrowl 10y ago
But he's also shown a lot of what he says isn't intended literally. I am so sick of this bullshit meme. The price of all the privilege and power of being President is that you take responsibility for what you say and how people could interpret it, because your actions have potentially life-changing consequences for people and so people have a strong interest in knowing (through your speech) what sort of actions you intend to take. If Trump can't or won't control his own speech, why should we assume that his actions are rooted in competence? You're basically saying that the concept of honesty is irrelevant when it comes to politics, which is an invitation to the worst sorts of corruption. It also overlooks two things: one, that it's incredibly disrespectful of people who are victimized by his casual remarks to say that the anxiety and fear stimulated from his position of power don't matter and thus (implicitly) that it's OK to provoke anger and fear in other people - in a word, bullying. Two, that many of Trump's supporters do take him literally - about building a wall, or how to treat Muslims, or about it being OK to grab women by the pussy, and Trump is empowering them while simultaneously disclaiming responsibility for their actions. I can't believe I even need to explain what a steaming pile of bullshit that position is. No, as Hannah Arendt and many others have shown, large-scale human rights abuses often do not involve lots of people consciously doing evil. Instead, they usually think there are good reasons for what they do. You mean like in the opening sentences of your comment?
- brighteyes 10y ago
  The problem is that in fact half the US population interprets Trump the way he intends. You and I belong to the other half, and we are puzzled by his non-literalness. Apparently for the last 8 years the opposite was happening, you and I had a president that spoke "our language", while the other half of the US kept misreading him. I don't know what to do about this except to try to listen to the other side and understand them the way they intend to be understood.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I've been listening to the other side for a good 15 years now and I have a very good idea of where they're coming from, thanks. And I don't mean secondary sources like liberal commentary websites or hand-wringing books on America's changing social fabric, I mean that I read all kinds of right-leaning sources, from think-tank publications t forums, public and private, from abstract economic theory to neo-nazi groups. I pay close attention to everything from what sort of humor they like to their religious and philosophical justifications for a wide variety of radical views. I have spent many thousands of hours immersed in conservative thought, which is pretty much the opposite of being in a filter bubble.

idlewords 10y ago

The census collects anonymized information, and does not use it to "target individuals". The pledge does not apply there. People are absolutely freaking out about Google and Facebook collecting this data. I don't know why you think this (almost) isn't happening.

brighteyes 10y ago
A tiny, tiny amount of people freak out about Google and Facebook's massive data collection. Not enough to be noticeable in the market shares of those companies' products.
- idlewords 10y ago
  The interesting metric is how many of their employees are getting worried enough to take collective action. And that number is not negligible.

elihu 10y ago

> The only reason someone is freaking out now is because Trump was elected. This is a good point. A lot of things that might have seemed sort-of reasonable under president Obama/Bush/Clinton are scarier under president Trump, and those things that were built in the past during different presidents remain in existence. So, when considering whether it's a good idea to build such tools, it's important to consider future worst-case scenarios, rather than freak out about what we've already built when it's too late. I think a good test to apply is: "what would the House Un-American Activities Committee have done with this tool" and if the answer is scary, then that tool probably shouldn't be built. (I realize that Facebook would definitely fall into the category of "really scary tools", and yet I still grudgingly use Facebook because it's convenient for some things.)

anigbrowl 10y ago

But he's also shown a lot of what he says isn't intended literally. I am so sick of this bullshit meme. The price of all the privilege and power of being President is that you take responsibility for what you say and how people could interpret it, because your actions have potentially life-changing consequences for people and so people have a strong interest in knowing (through your speech) what sort of actions you intend to take. If Trump can't or won't control his own speech, why should we assume that his actions are rooted in competence? You're basically saying that the concept of honesty is irrelevant when it comes to politics, which is an invitation to the worst sorts of corruption. It also overlooks two things: one, that it's incredibly disrespectful of people who are victimized by his casual remarks to say that the anxiety and fear stimulated from his position of power don't matter and thus (implicitly) that it's OK to provoke anger and fear in other people - in a word, bullying. Two, that many of Trump's supporters do take him literally - about building a wall, or how to treat Muslims, or about it being OK to grab women by the pussy, and Trump is empowering them while simultaneously disclaiming responsibility for their actions. I can't believe I even need to explain what a steaming pile of bullshit that position is. No, as Hannah Arendt and many others have shown, large-scale human rights abuses often do not involve lots of people consciously doing evil. Instead, they usually think there are good reasons for what they do. You mean like in the opening sentences of your comment?

brighteyes 10y ago
The problem is that in fact half the US population interprets Trump the way he intends. You and I belong to the other half, and we are puzzled by his non-literalness. Apparently for the last 8 years the opposite was happening, you and I had a president that spoke "our language", while the other half of the US kept misreading him. I don't know what to do about this except to try to listen to the other side and understand them the way they intend to be understood.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I've been listening to the other side for a good 15 years now and I have a very good idea of where they're coming from, thanks. And I don't mean secondary sources like liberal commentary websites or hand-wringing books on America's changing social fabric, I mean that I read all kinds of right-leaning sources, from think-tank publications t forums, public and private, from abstract economic theory to neo-nazi groups. I pay close attention to everything from what sort of humor they like to their religious and philosophical justifications for a wide variety of radical views. I have spent many thousands of hours immersed in conservative thought, which is pretty much the opposite of being in a filter bubble.