6 ms·

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 thei

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.
    - alloyed 9y ago
      If your intent is to improve the world, and not just act superior, I don't see what this accomplishes. Hear dissent without action long enough and it becomes noise.
    - danieldk 9y ago
      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.
    - addHocker 9y ago
      Higherups will usually defend by hiding behind the process - aka the virtual will and orders of the social golem that is a company. And nobody alone is responsible for the process. There is not necessary a feeling of responsibility on top- just because powers are granted by the process.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      You need to draw the line somewhere, though. As an extreme example, if a company I worked at decided that they were going to murder someone, I would certainly voice my dissent. If they decided to continue to go through with it, I'd quit. Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but consider companies like Palantir that work on things that actively erode citizen privacy. I'd never work at a company like that, and if my employer suddenly shifted gears to work on things like that, I'd quit. "Following orders" is for the military... and even then I would hope someone in the armed forces would refuse to comply with an unlawful or otherwise morally horrible order.
    - ionised 9y ago
      That sounds ridiculously cynical and half-arsed to me. This accomplishes nothing.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense. WTF? There are still people who haven't grasped that that is basically the recipe for all man-made humanitarian catastophes in human history?
  - danieldk 9y ago
    Just stop pretending that working at {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} is the highest goal that a tech person can strife for. A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life. 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.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      This is the thing I don't get. While certainly Google, Facebook, and Amazon are working on a lot of interesting problems, they're also big behemoths and your individual contribution isn't going to be all that noticeable. At this point in my career I could likely get a job at any of the three of them if I wanted to and worked at it, but I'm not really sure I want to. I'd rather work at a smaller company where what I do every day actually matters as to whether or not the company will succeed or fail. I guess that's just my preference, though; perhaps people like at G/F/A because they get to work on interesting projects without the stress associated with their output being a make-or-break for the company. And there's certainly more job security at a larger company than one that could more easily slip into hard times.
    - dagw 9y ago
      A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life. I wonder if that really is their goal? I think if you pushed them on it you'll probably find that their true life goal was to earn a massive salary while hanging out with smart people and fucking around with cool tech. It just so happens that (they believe that) {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} will offer them that. I suspect there is a good reason that Google, Facebook etc. structure their work setting on an idealized version of the university campus.
      - 9y ago
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."

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.
  - alloyed 9y ago
    If your intent is to improve the world, and not just act superior, I don't see what this accomplishes. Hear dissent without action long enough and it becomes noise.
  - danieldk 9y ago
    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.
  - addHocker 9y ago
    Higherups will usually defend by hiding behind the process - aka the virtual will and orders of the social golem that is a company. And nobody alone is responsible for the process. There is not necessary a feeling of responsibility on top- just because powers are granted by the process.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    You need to draw the line somewhere, though. As an extreme example, if a company I worked at decided that they were going to murder someone, I would certainly voice my dissent. If they decided to continue to go through with it, I'd quit. Sure, that's a bit hyperbolic, but consider companies like Palantir that work on things that actively erode citizen privacy. I'd never work at a company like that, and if my employer suddenly shifted gears to work on things like that, I'd quit. "Following orders" is for the military... and even then I would hope someone in the armed forces would refuse to comply with an unlawful or otherwise morally horrible order.
  - ionised 9y ago
    That sounds ridiculously cynical and half-arsed to me. This accomplishes nothing.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Once it's their call, you're absolved of any responsibility. Both morally and in every meaningful sense. WTF? There are still people who haven't grasped that that is basically the recipe for all man-made humanitarian catastophes in human history?
- danieldk 9y ago
  Just stop pretending that working at {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} is the highest goal that a tech person can strife for. A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life. 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.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    This is the thing I don't get. While certainly Google, Facebook, and Amazon are working on a lot of interesting problems, they're also big behemoths and your individual contribution isn't going to be all that noticeable. At this point in my career I could likely get a job at any of the three of them if I wanted to and worked at it, but I'm not really sure I want to. I'd rather work at a smaller company where what I do every day actually matters as to whether or not the company will succeed or fail. I guess that's just my preference, though; perhaps people like at G/F/A because they get to work on interesting projects without the stress associated with their output being a make-or-break for the company. And there's certainly more job security at a larger company than one that could more easily slip into hard times.
  - dagw 9y ago
    A see a lot of students who seem to have that as their goal in life. I wonder if that really is their goal? I think if you pushed them on it you'll probably find that their true life goal was to earn a massive salary while hanging out with smart people and fucking around with cool tech. It just so happens that (they believe that) {Google, Facebook, Amazon, ...} will offer them that. I suspect there is a good reason that Google, Facebook etc. structure their work setting on an idealized version of the university campus.
    - 9y ago

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."