4 ms·

This "movement" is not nearly as broad-based as the combination of loud online activism and press coverage suggests. The current social-media-fueled frenzied en

This "movement" is not nearly as broad-based as the combination of loud online activism and press coverage suggests. The current social-media-fueled frenzied environment has a way of amplifying extreme views, and the concrete policy propodals from the "ethics" camp are extreme indeed. It is not "unethical", for example, among the huge majority of the population, to cooperate with law enforcement in matters of immigration --- but to listen to advocates, cloud hosting for these organizations is beyond the pale. Every proposal I've seen has a similar character. To these people, "ethics" isn't about the timeline virtues of honesty and integrity. Instead, it's deplatforming your ideological opponents, because in activist world, the only explanation for disagreement is intellectual or moral defect. This whole effort is a thinly-disguised political power play, and large socially-important infrastructure companies should not play politics. These companies serve too important a role in society to allow themselves to be weilded as political tools by a loud and angry few.

guelo 8y ago
Labor has power whether capital likes it or not. Deal with it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stuntkite 8y ago
  I think he's under the impression that a paycheck makes you into a slave. Weird. He might have a political agenda of his own there. I've got as much power to quit as they do to fire me and creative talent isn't cookie cutter like finding someone to fill your shift on an assembly line. Regardless, in ANY job, no one is required to do something that they find unethical. Unfortunately, the power you have is to quit/get fired. Fortunately in tech, losing one (or more) people on a bleeding edge weapons contract can sink the whole thing as there aren't that many folks qualified to do that sort of work. A paycheck doesn't remove my brain or make my boss a god.
- dang 8y ago
  Can you please not post ideological flamebait to HN? These topics teeter on the brink of tedious flamewar no matter what; that's no reason to push it over. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Apocryphon 8y ago
Employee protests over hot button issues are one thing, grievances over working conditions and general dissatisfaction with Bay Area living conditions are another, and mentioned in the article.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stuntkite 8y ago
I decided a few years ago when I left the CTO role at a startup I founded over what I considered a massively unethical feature, that I would never build anything that violates my code of ethics. No one has to build racist face tracking bots, or auto killbots, or automated sentancing platforms, or things that are just useless cash grab garbage. Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. Fine, go for it, but the power I do have is to not build it. I'm not a clerk, I'm a creative partner and a damned good one. Money doesn't buy my soul. Fun fact, that feature never got built in that platform that I left. In fact they pivoted completely out of the field I had built the platform for. Possibly because of the loss of the person that got them there. Today, they make money, but not off something that would have haunted me for the rest of my life. Also, I'm much better at qualifying my partners/employers now before things like that come up and am much happier with the things I'm working on now. Maybe that's political. This feature could have been seen as de-platforming my political opposition if you wanted to. It's not much different from the stories in the article. We have a choice as the creators of the tools, like it or not. Not building a weapon for mass surveillance is a power I have and I'm willing to use it and it works. The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand.
- true_religion 8y ago
  > Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. The true argument would be that those things aren't unethical (or are merely poorly stated, or misunderstood), and no one should feel bad for their actions in building them. I don't think people want face tracking software to be explicitly "racist", anymore than Apple wanted their first generation of digital cameras lenses to poorly take pictures of dark skinned people. > The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand. Thing is... people keep changing where the line in the sand ought to be drawn and soon start believing that anyone whose line is in a place it was merely ten years previously is "unethical". Ethics isn't supposed to be a spectrum, or a hammer to beat others over the head with, its supposed to be a way in which we communicate our ideals to one another so we can build together, or at least live together. Now this may not be you, but I think too many people are becoming intractable about their views.
yourbandsucks 8y ago
Amen. The root cause here is that people are pissed that Trump is President. They (rightfully) feel disempowered and disrespected by it, and they are (wrongfully) coping psychologically by asserting any power they can against their workplace. Is offering censored search in China a net negative or net positive for the world compared to no search? How about effective image recognition on drone surveillance? I could argue either way on both, they're not clear-cut to me.. but nobody's even arguing about the merits. They just want to put a scalp on the wall. You know what I don't see any of these kids doing? Going to work for Teach for America or the Peace Corps. Or even heading inland a few dozen miles and canvassing for a weekend this election season. They're happy to suck off the teat of monopoly, making 5x the median wage at a cushy job, and then expect the source of their largesse to make them feel like they're saving the world in the process.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  So tell me, what is the exact dollar amount one can make before they're no longer allowed to talk about these things?
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    I look at it this way -- if someone's devoting their life to driving stupid ad clicks because that's what pays best, I don't feel obligated to listen to "100% pure"[1], absolutist moral positions from them. One could even say it's a form of moral compensation for a morally meaningless career. It's not about the money, it's about the hypocrisy. You don't see them protesting Youtube's political polarization machine of a recommendation engine. [1]: An expectation of 100% moral purity rather than "which has the least bad practical effects" is the root cause of a lot of harm in the world.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
gaius 8y ago
large socially-important infrastructure companies should not play politics I predict within a year the platform vs publisher issue will be resolved legislatively if not done voluntarily.
trophycase 8y ago
Uh, no it isn't? I quit working at google because I don't approve of tracking and massively applied AI. I also got in a friendship ending fight with someone over their decision to work for facebook. It's individual people who are complicit in doing unethical things and it's individuals who need to take responsibility and do something.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Good for you for standing up for your ideals. I don't think you're the type the OP was complaining about.
vkou 8y ago
> It is not "unethical", for example, among the huge majority of the population, to cooperate with law enforcement in matters of immigration --- but to listen to advocates, cloud hosting for these organizations is beyond the pale. It is unethical to co-operate with law enforcement, if you believe law enforcement is done in an unethical manner. Anything else is an appeal to authority. Do this because the government wants you to.
bwestergard 8y ago
"These companies [large socially-important infrastructure companies] serve too important a role in society to allow themselves to be weilded as political tools by a loud and angry few." Isn't this an argument for increased regulation or public ownership?

guelo 8y ago

Labor has power whether capital likes it or not. Deal with it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stuntkite 8y ago
I think he's under the impression that a paycheck makes you into a slave. Weird. He might have a political agenda of his own there. I've got as much power to quit as they do to fire me and creative talent isn't cookie cutter like finding someone to fill your shift on an assembly line. Regardless, in ANY job, no one is required to do something that they find unethical. Unfortunately, the power you have is to quit/get fired. Fortunately in tech, losing one (or more) people on a bleeding edge weapons contract can sink the whole thing as there aren't that many folks qualified to do that sort of work. A paycheck doesn't remove my brain or make my boss a god.
dang 8y ago
Can you please not post ideological flamebait to HN? These topics teeter on the brink of tedious flamewar no matter what; that's no reason to push it over. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apocryphon 8y ago

Employee protests over hot button issues are one thing, grievances over working conditions and general dissatisfaction with Bay Area living conditions are another, and mentioned in the article.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stuntkite 8y ago

I decided a few years ago when I left the CTO role at a startup I founded over what I considered a massively unethical feature, that I would never build anything that violates my code of ethics. No one has to build racist face tracking bots, or auto killbots, or automated sentancing platforms, or things that are just useless cash grab garbage. Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. Fine, go for it, but the power I do have is to not build it. I'm not a clerk, I'm a creative partner and a damned good one. Money doesn't buy my soul. Fun fact, that feature never got built in that platform that I left. In fact they pivoted completely out of the field I had built the platform for. Possibly because of the loss of the person that got them there. Today, they make money, but not off something that would have haunted me for the rest of my life. Also, I'm much better at qualifying my partners/employers now before things like that come up and am much happier with the things I'm working on now. Maybe that's political. This feature could have been seen as de-platforming my political opposition if you wanted to. It's not much different from the stories in the article. We have a choice as the creators of the tools, like it or not. Not building a weapon for mass surveillance is a power I have and I'm willing to use it and it works. The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand.

true_religion 8y ago
> Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. The true argument would be that those things aren't unethical (or are merely poorly stated, or misunderstood), and no one should feel bad for their actions in building them. I don't think people want face tracking software to be explicitly "racist", anymore than Apple wanted their first generation of digital cameras lenses to poorly take pictures of dark skinned people. > The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand. Thing is... people keep changing where the line in the sand ought to be drawn and soon start believing that anyone whose line is in a place it was merely ten years previously is "unethical". Ethics isn't supposed to be a spectrum, or a hammer to beat others over the head with, its supposed to be a way in which we communicate our ideals to one another so we can build together, or at least live together. Now this may not be you, but I think too many people are becoming intractable about their views.

yourbandsucks 8y ago

Amen. The root cause here is that people are pissed that Trump is President. They (rightfully) feel disempowered and disrespected by it, and they are (wrongfully) coping psychologically by asserting any power they can against their workplace. Is offering censored search in China a net negative or net positive for the world compared to no search? How about effective image recognition on drone surveillance? I could argue either way on both, they're not clear-cut to me.. but nobody's even arguing about the merits. They just want to put a scalp on the wall. You know what I don't see any of these kids doing? Going to work for Teach for America or the Peace Corps. Or even heading inland a few dozen miles and canvassing for a weekend this election season. They're happy to suck off the teat of monopoly, making 5x the median wage at a cushy job, and then expect the source of their largesse to make them feel like they're saving the world in the process.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
So tell me, what is the exact dollar amount one can make before they're no longer allowed to talk about these things?
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  I look at it this way -- if someone's devoting their life to driving stupid ad clicks because that's what pays best, I don't feel obligated to listen to "100% pure"[1], absolutist moral positions from them. One could even say it's a form of moral compensation for a morally meaningless career. It's not about the money, it's about the hypocrisy. You don't see them protesting Youtube's political polarization machine of a recommendation engine. [1]: An expectation of 100% moral purity rather than "which has the least bad practical effects" is the root cause of a lot of harm in the world.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

gaius 8y ago

large socially-important infrastructure companies should not play politics I predict within a year the platform vs publisher issue will be resolved legislatively if not done voluntarily.

trophycase 8y ago

Uh, no it isn't? I quit working at google because I don't approve of tracking and massively applied AI. I also got in a friendship ending fight with someone over their decision to work for facebook. It's individual people who are complicit in doing unethical things and it's individuals who need to take responsibility and do something.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Good for you for standing up for your ideals. I don't think you're the type the OP was complaining about.

vkou 8y ago

> It is not "unethical", for example, among the huge majority of the population, to cooperate with law enforcement in matters of immigration --- but to listen to advocates, cloud hosting for these organizations is beyond the pale. It is unethical to co-operate with law enforcement, if you believe law enforcement is done in an unethical manner. Anything else is an appeal to authority. Do this because the government wants you to.

bwestergard 8y ago

"These companies [large socially-important infrastructure companies] serve too important a role in society to allow themselves to be weilded as political tools by a loud and angry few." Isn't this an argument for increased regulation or public ownership?