8 ms·

What sucks is I can't just tell my friends "you're working for an evil company -- just look at {insert 5 evil things they did in the past couple years}". It suc

What sucks is I can't just tell my friends "you're working for an evil company -- just look at {insert 5 evil things they did in the past couple years}". It sucks even more that these are some of the kindest and most caring people I know, with better moral character than myself -- I almost feel they somehow got brainwashed into their jobs. But who would enjoy hearing that? At best they would ignore it; at worst you'd just lose friends. How can you possibly tell them they're making the world worse when you know they'd never do this intentionally?

jbkrule 9y ago
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?
- jacobush 9y ago
  Technologies are, to some extent more neutral. These people might not be doing much to make the world worse, but they are still pedalling along a bit.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  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 aren't contributing to the "success" of their company. And certainly they could be working somewhere else that has a more positive role in making the world a better place. How do you draw a line?
  - porker 9y ago
    That sounds very much like the "just following" orders defence, also known as "Superior Orders". More details @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      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?
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        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.
        throwaway613834 9y ago
        Okay, so how do I get my friends to do that is the question. Conveying this requires getting them to admit there is something wrong with what their employer is doing in the first place, and at that point I'd be already past the obstacle I'm trying to figure out how to overcome.
        sverige 9y ago
        After reading most of the comments, I think you tell them bluntly what you're thinking. If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies. And if they keep doing evil things for a living but still want to be your friend, maybe you should be the one to end the friendship. I've done that a few times. It gets easier with practice.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies. This is what I meant by "Don't try to control your friends." If you don't let your friends have radically different beliefs from your own, you're just making an echo chamber for yourself.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    What is the level of culpability for a foot soldier in the army of an evil dictator? What is the level if they committed no atrocities? How about if they were an active participant? How about if they were zealous and inspired new levels of atrocious behavior? 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.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Soldiers typically have a duty to refuse immoral orders.
      - 9y ago
  - namandixit 9y ago
    As Lord Varys convinced himself- "I am not the one doing it."
- pmontra 9y ago
  Search makes the world better, using search placement to drive competitors out of the market makes the world worse. So the same company could have both good and evil parts. The internal decision makers shape the overall alignment of the company. Market can't fix that, especially when there are almost monopolistic positions. Regulations can. Maybe there are other ways but don't count on boycotts or things like that. See how much people is ready to give away for convenience (e.g. privacy.)
- kodfodrasz 9y ago
  Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code. Is it making the World a better place? I don't think so. Is it making it a worse place? Only for other developers :)
  - tanilama 9y ago
    > Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code. I don't think so, there is a lot of stuff happening in a place that called SV. Maybe you are referring to the cool startup bunch?
    - kodfodrasz 9y ago
      Indeed I do, but also many other unnecessary innovations came out of SV, as well as some interesting Research, which end up used for solving problems which don't exist.
      - apersona 9y ago
        What's wrong with unnecessary innovations? There were lots of inventions/discoveries that didn't solve any existing problem during their time of discovery.
        kodfodrasz 9y ago
        Their marketing is annoying me.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
If you're a friend, you won't try to control them. Debate in search for truth; admit you might be the one who's wrong. Especially to yourself. But never control. That's a philosophy that bit me hard when I didn't follow it, so just trying to pass it along. I think techies are far too used to wielding power. Assume for a moment that the world is evil. What now? Historically, the answer was "Accept it." The idea that we could even do anything to meaningfully change the situation is very recent. Concretely, starting a startup is one of the few ways you can influence the world. Failing that, there's nothing you can do, so you shouldn't worry about it. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll turn out however it'll turn out.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  Yeah, nothing is exactly what I've been doing so far. I'm just wondering if that's really the best I can do.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place? It sounds like a dopey question, but it's at the root of a lot of these feelings. I used to feel similarly to you: a general sense of malaise, a discomfort with the world, a plan for doing something concrete to change it. But everyone has limited ambition. If you don't focus it like a laser, you won't get anything done. Then suddenly your time is gone. I suppose my point is, relax and enjoy yourself. Choose whatever goal you really care about, and focus on that one thing. What Facebook does was never up to us in the first place. Besides, they're far less evil than Microsoft was at its peak. America isn't so bad right now.
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      > Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place? I don't know if I can... that's why I'm asking if I can. If feeling hopeless is the best I can do then so be it, but I'm thinking maybe people have had better success.
tallanvor 9y ago
My response to you would be the following: 1. Working for a company doesn't mean you agree with everything they do. 2. Just because some of the work you do is used by someone else for something you don't agree with doesn't mean that you're evil by default. 3. Try to find a tool that can't be used for "evil". Seriously, I doubt you can find a single thing, whether a device or an application that can't both do good and bad. Should your friends refuse to create anything because it might be put to a use they don't agree with? 4. How do you know they haven't stopped things that you would have considered even worse? Pretty much any job is going to have stuff that you can't talk about, whether for IP, legal, or other reasons. And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  My replies would be the following: 1. Right, I realize this. That's one part of why they're still my friends! 2. I never said my friends are evil because of this. I in fact said quite the opposite. 3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it. 4. I have no idea. I'm also not sure how this comes into play.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > 3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it. This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go?
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      > This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go? That's secondary to the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is how to even bring up the topic in the first place. If I can get that far I think I've already done pretty well.
tanilama 9y ago
Best advice is don't do this. Your friends are adults, and 1000 people work for a company for 1000 different reasons. It is a job after all. Not everyone is comfortable being given moral lectures.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Which justifies doing evil or letting people do evil how exactly?
  - tanilama 9y ago
    Depends. If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? TBH, calling out a person to quit just because one don't agree his/her employer's deeds before having a full understanding whether that person is directly involved or not, tells quite a lot about one's hubris.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"? How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?
      - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
        Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Everyone's constraints in life are different. Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
Aeolun 9y ago
Thing is, if not me, then someone else. At least I am aware of the issues and can try to limit them as much as possible. I'm still bound to my salary, but at least I have ethics. The next one they get might not.
arctux 9y ago
This is something I've been wrestling with as well. Several of my friends work for Google or Facebook. I've discussed this at length with some of them. Several seem to object strongly to, for example, Congress's block of the FCC's proposed ISP privacy rules. Yet they work for companies which implement forms of tracking which are substantially similar. Some work directly on implementation of said tracking. I find it frustrating since each and every one of them has other options. In the words of Jeff Hammerbacher: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> It sucks even more that these are some of the kindest and most caring people I know, with better moral character than myself Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion, when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here? > when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character? > Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour? How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. Not sure what other metric I can use really.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here? Well, some sort of reasoning? Like, what do you observe about these friends that leads you to that conclusion? > How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character? I'm not sure why there should be a priority between those question?! It's certainly a valid question, but I just accepted your premise in that regard for the sake of the discussion. After all, I am not trying to come to a conclusion about your friends (whom I don't know anyway), but rather I am trying to understand how you reconcile your observation that they are doing something that you would consider evil with the conclusion that they are of "better moral character than [your]self". To me it seems like that would be a contradiction in terms. I guess I could also just ask what you mean by "good moral character", that this does not cause a contradiction? > How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I guess I meant something along the lines of "reasonably sure". But also, this wasn't so much a question about your friends, but a question about you: How do you come to the conclusion that they are of "better moral character"? What about those friends makes you think that? And have you considered whether your conclusion isn't more based on what they claim to be, rather than on what you have actually observed them to be? > I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. I guess that goes back to the question of what your definition of "moral character" is, but wouldn't brainwashing impair moral character?
tsunamifury 9y ago
People are more responsible for what they do than what their company does. I'd invite you to judge your peers more based on their individual choices than who pays them. If you are an American are you responsible for the evil of that nation? You'd probably say no. So goes with your tech friends.
csomar 9y ago
You understand that they are employees and not employers? Are you self-employed/entrepreneur or do you have a passive income?
kybernetikos 9y ago
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Upton Sinclair
GhostVII 9y ago
What do you consider an evil company though? Are Google and Facebook evil, because they don't preserve your privacy? I certainly don't consider them evil, but you might. Maybe they just have a different idea of evil than you. Or maybe they don't really care too much, and are OK working for an "evil" company if they are making tonnes of money doing it.

jbkrule 9y ago

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?

jacobush 9y ago
Technologies are, to some extent more neutral. These people might not be doing much to make the world worse, but they are still pedalling along a bit.
throwaway613834 9y ago
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 aren't contributing to the "success" of their company. And certainly they could be working somewhere else that has a more positive role in making the world a better place. How do you draw a line?
- porker 9y ago
  That sounds very much like the "just following" orders defence, also known as "Superior Orders". More details @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    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?
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      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.
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        Okay, so how do I get my friends to do that is the question. Conveying this requires getting them to admit there is something wrong with what their employer is doing in the first place, and at that point I'd be already past the obstacle I'm trying to figure out how to overcome.
        sverige 9y ago
        After reading most of the comments, I think you tell them bluntly what you're thinking. If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies. And if they keep doing evil things for a living but still want to be your friend, maybe you should be the one to end the friendship. I've done that a few times. It gets easier with practice.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        If they listen to you, maybe they'll quit. If you lose their friendship, you can make new ones who don't work for evil companies. This is what I meant by "Don't try to control your friends." If you don't let your friends have radically different beliefs from your own, you're just making an echo chamber for yourself.
- KGIII 9y ago
  What is the level of culpability for a foot soldier in the army of an evil dictator? What is the level if they committed no atrocities? How about if they were an active participant? How about if they were zealous and inspired new levels of atrocious behavior? 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.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Soldiers typically have a duty to refuse immoral orders.
    - 9y ago
- namandixit 9y ago
  As Lord Varys convinced himself- "I am not the one doing it."
pmontra 9y ago
Search makes the world better, using search placement to drive competitors out of the market makes the world worse. So the same company could have both good and evil parts. The internal decision makers shape the overall alignment of the company. Market can't fix that, especially when there are almost monopolistic positions. Regulations can. Maybe there are other ways but don't count on boycotts or things like that. See how much people is ready to give away for convenience (e.g. privacy.)
kodfodrasz 9y ago
Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code. Is it making the World a better place? I don't think so. Is it making it a worse place? Only for other developers :)
- tanilama 9y ago
  > Most of the research coming out of SV tech companies nowadays is yet annother chat platform, and reimplementing broken C code in broken JavaScript code. I don't think so, there is a lot of stuff happening in a place that called SV. Maybe you are referring to the cool startup bunch?
  - kodfodrasz 9y ago
    Indeed I do, but also many other unnecessary innovations came out of SV, as well as some interesting Research, which end up used for solving problems which don't exist.
    - apersona 9y ago
      What's wrong with unnecessary innovations? There were lots of inventions/discoveries that didn't solve any existing problem during their time of discovery.
      - kodfodrasz 9y ago
        Their marketing is annoying me.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

If you're a friend, you won't try to control them. Debate in search for truth; admit you might be the one who's wrong. Especially to yourself. But never control. That's a philosophy that bit me hard when I didn't follow it, so just trying to pass it along. I think techies are far too used to wielding power. Assume for a moment that the world is evil. What now? Historically, the answer was "Accept it." The idea that we could even do anything to meaningfully change the situation is very recent. Concretely, starting a startup is one of the few ways you can influence the world. Failing that, there's nothing you can do, so you shouldn't worry about it. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll turn out however it'll turn out.

throwaway613834 9y ago
Yeah, nothing is exactly what I've been doing so far. I'm just wondering if that's really the best I can do.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place? It sounds like a dopey question, but it's at the root of a lot of these feelings. I used to feel similarly to you: a general sense of malaise, a discomfort with the world, a plan for doing something concrete to change it. But everyone has limited ambition. If you don't focus it like a laser, you won't get anything done. Then suddenly your time is gone. I suppose my point is, relax and enjoy yourself. Choose whatever goal you really care about, and focus on that one thing. What Facebook does was never up to us in the first place. Besides, they're far less evil than Microsoft was at its peak. America isn't so bad right now.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > Well, that sort of begs the question: Why did you feel you could do anything in the first place? I don't know if I can... that's why I'm asking if I can. If feeling hopeless is the best I can do then so be it, but I'm thinking maybe people have had better success.

tallanvor 9y ago

My response to you would be the following: 1. Working for a company doesn't mean you agree with everything they do. 2. Just because some of the work you do is used by someone else for something you don't agree with doesn't mean that you're evil by default. 3. Try to find a tool that can't be used for "evil". Seriously, I doubt you can find a single thing, whether a device or an application that can't both do good and bad. Should your friends refuse to create anything because it might be put to a use they don't agree with? 4. How do you know they haven't stopped things that you would have considered even worse? Pretty much any job is going to have stuff that you can't talk about, whether for IP, legal, or other reasons. And at the end of the day, your friends have their own moral codes, just like you do. If they feel that the work they do fits their code, then that's their decision.

throwaway613834 9y ago
My replies would be the following: 1. Right, I realize this. That's one part of why they're still my friends! 2. I never said my friends are evil because of this. I in fact said quite the opposite. 3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it. 4. I have no idea. I'm also not sure how this comes into play.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > 3. The question is not whether something can be used for "evil", but whether it is. If it is, ideally people shouldn't be contributing to it. This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go?
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > This is difficult, though. If a thing is used for evil, but also for good, where do you draw the line and say the bad is outweighing the good and the thing has to go? That's secondary to the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is how to even bring up the topic in the first place. If I can get that far I think I've already done pretty well.

tanilama 9y ago

Best advice is don't do this. Your friends are adults, and 1000 people work for a company for 1000 different reasons. It is a job after all. Not everyone is comfortable being given moral lectures.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Which justifies doing evil or letting people do evil how exactly?
- tanilama 9y ago
  Depends. If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? TBH, calling out a person to quit just because one don't agree his/her employer's deeds before having a full understanding whether that person is directly involved or not, tells quite a lot about one's hubris.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"? How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?
    - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
      Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Everyone's constraints in life are different. Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.

Aeolun 9y ago

Thing is, if not me, then someone else. At least I am aware of the issues and can try to limit them as much as possible. I'm still bound to my salary, but at least I have ethics. The next one they get might not.

arctux 9y ago

This is something I've been wrestling with as well. Several of my friends work for Google or Facebook. I've discussed this at length with some of them. Several seem to object strongly to, for example, Congress's block of the FCC's proposed ISP privacy rules. Yet they work for companies which implement forms of tracking which are substantially similar. Some work directly on implementation of said tracking. I find it frustrating since each and every one of them has other options. In the words of Jeff Hammerbacher: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> It sucks even more that these are some of the kindest and most caring people I know, with better moral character than myself Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion, when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour?

throwaway613834 9y ago
> Evidently not? I'd really be curious how you come to that conclusion Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here? > when they apparently don't have the first clue as to how to recognize evil, nor do they seem to care? How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character? > Are you sure that that's not just the image they promote of themselves, rather than an actual assessment of their behaviour? How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. Not sure what other metric I can use really.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Uhm... what sort of a response are you expecting that could convince you here? Well, some sort of reasoning? Like, what do you observe about these friends that leads you to that conclusion? > How are you so certain that I'm recognizing the evil correctly in the first place? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first question that before questioning my assessment of my friends' character? I'm not sure why there should be a priority between those question?! It's certainly a valid question, but I just accepted your premise in that regard for the sake of the discussion. After all, I am not trying to come to a conclusion about your friends (whom I don't know anyway), but rather I am trying to understand how you reconcile your observation that they are doing something that you would consider evil with the conclusion that they are of "better moral character than [your]self". To me it seems like that would be a contradiction in terms. I guess I could also just ask what you mean by "good moral character", that this does not cause a contradiction? > How high of a bar is "sure" for you? I'm not even "sure" I understand all of my own parents' motivations in life well, let alone my friends'. The way you phrase your question I don't get the impression I could meet that bar realistically about anyone. I guess I meant something along the lines of "reasonably sure". But also, this wasn't so much a question about your friends, but a question about you: How do you come to the conclusion that they are of "better moral character"? What about those friends makes you think that? And have you considered whether your conclusion isn't more based on what they claim to be, rather than on what you have actually observed them to be? > I can say I'm "sure" enough that I'm considering the possibility of them getting brainwashed as significantly more likely than them having poor moral character. I guess that goes back to the question of what your definition of "moral character" is, but wouldn't brainwashing impair moral character?

tsunamifury 9y ago

People are more responsible for what they do than what their company does. I'd invite you to judge your peers more based on their individual choices than who pays them. If you are an American are you responsible for the evil of that nation? You'd probably say no. So goes with your tech friends.

csomar 9y ago

You understand that they are employees and not employers? Are you self-employed/entrepreneur or do you have a passive income?

kybernetikos 9y ago

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Upton Sinclair

GhostVII 9y ago

What do you consider an evil company though? Are Google and Facebook evil, because they don't preserve your privacy? I certainly don't consider them evil, but you might. Maybe they just have a different idea of evil than you. Or maybe they don't really care too much, and are OK working for an "evil" company if they are making tonnes of money doing it.