4 ms·

Also many folks from Facebook AI Research (including Yann LeCun)

Fins 8y ago
Not to say that they are wrong in boycotting, but I find it hard to take seriously a moral stance from somebody working for Facebook.
- nunya213 8y ago
  Kind of a hard stance to enforce. If you work for basically any major corporate entity you are probably sacrificing integrity to do so. So it seems you are calling the kettle black here.
  - Fins 8y ago
    Not quite every corp out there has a business model of specifically misusing and abusing personal information, manipulating peoples' emotions, etc., etc. I work for a rather minor corporate entity anyway, does it mean that I am always off the hook? /s
    - jri939mcko 8y ago
      It’s a wobbly ethical stance, since you’re tacitly supporting nation state economy and its stewards that actively harm humanity, and ignore mountains of evidence that it is doing so, while peddling “only Facebook”, a Johnny Come-lately relatively, are involved in economic evil I suppose one can equivocate that away with “I’m just following orders.” But as a scientist, I have a hard time accepting everyone else “believing they are right” making it ok for me to also accept a result that has plainly been rigged into existence given historical records of merit I’m really rather indifferent to supporting the efforts rich people seek Yet if I want any real quality of life... kowtow cause everyone else is
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Equating all major corporate entities is a cop-out.
    - nunya213 8y ago
      I clearly left room for some corps to escape my characterization so there's no cop-out, sorry.
  - called_it 8y ago
    How is it hard to dismiss the moral advice of people who lack integrity? > it seems you are calling the kettle black here. Because it's "probably" in your opinion that they sacrificed integrity, it "seems" like that's not just probable, but fact? Nonsense, even before getting into how you just equate any lack of integrity with any other, as if it was binary, instead of a matter of degree.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Just because their parent company might not be morally in the clear, that doesn't mean that moral criticisms by its employees is automatically or even more likely to be invalid.
  - Fins 8y ago
    Oh, it might be valid, in regards to the magazine, alright. It just smacks of hypocrisy when their research is pretty much bound to be used for unethical purposes.

Fins 8y ago

Not to say that they are wrong in boycotting, but I find it hard to take seriously a moral stance from somebody working for Facebook.

nunya213 8y ago
Kind of a hard stance to enforce. If you work for basically any major corporate entity you are probably sacrificing integrity to do so. So it seems you are calling the kettle black here.
- Fins 8y ago
  Not quite every corp out there has a business model of specifically misusing and abusing personal information, manipulating peoples' emotions, etc., etc. I work for a rather minor corporate entity anyway, does it mean that I am always off the hook? /s
  - jri939mcko 8y ago
    It’s a wobbly ethical stance, since you’re tacitly supporting nation state economy and its stewards that actively harm humanity, and ignore mountains of evidence that it is doing so, while peddling “only Facebook”, a Johnny Come-lately relatively, are involved in economic evil I suppose one can equivocate that away with “I’m just following orders.” But as a scientist, I have a hard time accepting everyone else “believing they are right” making it ok for me to also accept a result that has plainly been rigged into existence given historical records of merit I’m really rather indifferent to supporting the efforts rich people seek Yet if I want any real quality of life... kowtow cause everyone else is
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Equating all major corporate entities is a cop-out.
  - nunya213 8y ago
    I clearly left room for some corps to escape my characterization so there's no cop-out, sorry.
- called_it 8y ago
  How is it hard to dismiss the moral advice of people who lack integrity? > it seems you are calling the kettle black here. Because it's "probably" in your opinion that they sacrificed integrity, it "seems" like that's not just probable, but fact? Nonsense, even before getting into how you just equate any lack of integrity with any other, as if it was binary, instead of a matter of degree.
Vinnl 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Just because their parent company might not be morally in the clear, that doesn't mean that moral criticisms by its employees is automatically or even more likely to be invalid.
- Fins 8y ago
  Oh, it might be valid, in regards to the magazine, alright. It just smacks of hypocrisy when their research is pretty much bound to be used for unethical purposes.