4 ms·

To be specific, my words above are: “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” If the argument is that by staying they can create change,

To be specific, my words above are: “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” If the argument is that by staying they can create change, our views are compatible. If the argument is that “although they may try, they can’t change anything, but they should still stay,” then my argument is that they have chosen to be complicit, and it is appropriate to hold them to account. Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion.

kryogen1c 8y ago
> To be specific, my words above are: > “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” > Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion. This is a false dichotomy. The world exists in grey areas. Just because you are passionate about security and privacy does not mean joe the google engineer is culpable for the _industry accepted_ practices you disagree with. People are fallible and so are companies. If everyone had to change-or-quit every company they worked at, no one would work anywhere. Your philosophy is not sustainable, logical, or implementable. In the spectrum of immoralities, fingerprinting users is pretty far down on the list, although it is certainly present.