3 ms·

>TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them. You may be passionate and well informed enough to have the strength of conviction to

>TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them. You may be passionate and well informed enough to have the strength of conviction to take appropriate action, but most people are not. Nothing will change unless you can affect the behavior of others. You will be fought every step of the way: for the company, this is a fight for survival. >they can because you let them. What does this statement reveal about your internal dialogue? You can't expect people who don't understand or who aren't involved to take action. You are delegating your responsibility. Perhaps it is good for your ego, but I can tell you how it turns out. A more appropriate statement would be, "because I let them."

dcow 9y ago
I'm not trying to deflect personal responsibility and I fortunately have not been in a position where I've had to make an ethical decision that would contradict the wishes of my employer (nor do I work for an employer in the realm of data hungry social media/advertisement) but I have come close WRT intellectual property and software patents. My comment which admitttedly digresses slightly at the end is more about the fact that I find it hard for a company or a group of people to agree on _any_ sort of ethical framework these days when we have such a wide array of cultural backgrounds. I may not like giving up privacy in exchange for auto-gifs of my photo albums, but plenty of people love it, and is it even my place to tell you how you should feel about it (different from telling you how I feel about it and why)? I and other individuals and digital rights advocacy groups do have the conversations about the fallout of letting companies run around unchecked with all the data. And I support the other individuals in arguments and the organizations financially (and as I mentioned try to lead by example). My take away from those conversations however is that privacy is not as much a concern as you or I or Kumail might agree it is right here right now. I don't see how I can have more stake in the game short of shouting louder or deciding to pivot my personal career into public advocacy or civil service... Am I really responsible for indoctrinating others into my own privacy conscious worldview? At the end of the day you have to educate yourself and form your own worldview and live out a set of virtues. If you don't do that or choose a different worldview or set of virtues than me, is that my fault? And if a group of individuals who don't care about the same virtues as I do are at the helm of a company, it's a failure on my part to have prevented that situation from happening? Maybe I'm not 100% clear on your point.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Yes, we're on the same page. It's great that you're supporting organizations and people with this. >deciding to pivot my personal career into public advocacy or civil service There have been worse ideas. It's worth fighting. :) Organizations will engage in behavior if the expected risk-adjusted payoff is sufficiently large, from eroding privacy to cheating emissions tests. Unless we can change that equation we should expect to lose in the long run. This behavior is emergent, based on laws of power and organizational structure. Organizations stand to win far more than lose, and a victory for us does not provide the same millions of dollars. They get stronger as we get weaker, and they use that strength to win people over to their position.

dcow 9y ago

I'm not trying to deflect personal responsibility and I fortunately have not been in a position where I've had to make an ethical decision that would contradict the wishes of my employer (nor do I work for an employer in the realm of data hungry social media/advertisement) but I have come close WRT intellectual property and software patents. My comment which admitttedly digresses slightly at the end is more about the fact that I find it hard for a company or a group of people to agree on _any_ sort of ethical framework these days when we have such a wide array of cultural backgrounds. I may not like giving up privacy in exchange for auto-gifs of my photo albums, but plenty of people love it, and is it even my place to tell you how you should feel about it (different from telling you how I feel about it and why)? I and other individuals and digital rights advocacy groups do have the conversations about the fallout of letting companies run around unchecked with all the data. And I support the other individuals in arguments and the organizations financially (and as I mentioned try to lead by example). My take away from those conversations however is that privacy is not as much a concern as you or I or Kumail might agree it is right here right now. I don't see how I can have more stake in the game short of shouting louder or deciding to pivot my personal career into public advocacy or civil service... Am I really responsible for indoctrinating others into my own privacy conscious worldview? At the end of the day you have to educate yourself and form your own worldview and live out a set of virtues. If you don't do that or choose a different worldview or set of virtues than me, is that my fault? And if a group of individuals who don't care about the same virtues as I do are at the helm of a company, it's a failure on my part to have prevented that situation from happening? Maybe I'm not 100% clear on your point.

abandonliberty 9y ago
Yes, we're on the same page. It's great that you're supporting organizations and people with this. >deciding to pivot my personal career into public advocacy or civil service There have been worse ideas. It's worth fighting. :) Organizations will engage in behavior if the expected risk-adjusted payoff is sufficiently large, from eroding privacy to cheating emissions tests. Unless we can change that equation we should expect to lose in the long run. This behavior is emergent, based on laws of power and organizational structure. Organizations stand to win far more than lose, and a victory for us does not provide the same millions of dollars. They get stronger as we get weaker, and they use that strength to win people over to their position.