5 ms·

Disheartening to see so many apathetic or downright hostile responses on here. I applaud this article for taking a stand.

Retra 7y ago
There's no point in taking a stand if it means relinquishing responsibility. You'd rather have weapons in the hands of pacifists than warmongers, but that won't happen if pacifists "conscientiously object" and throw down their arms; police brutality isn't eliminated by making it a job that appeals only to bullies; and software development doesn't become ethical by asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit. What you need is for people to communicate and understand the world well enough that they can find solutions that are as ethical as they are effective.
- int_19h 7y ago
  I don't see "asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit" software development, though. I'm seeing a call to refuse working on things that are unethical. Most software engineering does not involve working on projects that have immediate side effects that significantly impact human rights and freedoms. To build on your police analogy, this is about asking police officers to refuse to enforce policies such as "stop and frisk".
  - Retra 7y ago
    You can't ask individuals to make that decision; they'll just be replaced with ones who are willing. Leadership needs to agree with you. You can't ask people to work at a place while undermining their companies' business plans.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Of course you can ask individuals directly working on such stuff to make that decision. Implementers (who are aware what they're implementing) are just as much responsible for it as the people who gave them directions. In fact, this is just a rehash of the "just following orders" defense, except in this case it's not even orders, since you can walk out on them. Not only that, I seriously doubt that Google would punish anybody who would simply request to not work on that particular project, instead of accommodating them by reassigning to a different team. So this is a very low bar to clear. Does it mean that somebody else will do it? Probably, but responsibility matters. If you're the one who assists in illegal or unethical activities, then you're personally responsible for them.
seppin 7y ago
Good money is hard to turn down, for any reason.
- 01100011 7y ago
  I really wish people wielding the downvotes around here had the principles to avoid downvoting comments because they disagree with the argument. This is not reddit.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    It's an uncharitable low-effort comment labeling HN users with differing opinions as mainly motivated by greed. That kind of comment is discouraged by the rules and is why the downvote feature exists.
    - 01100011 7y ago
      It's low on words but dense with meaning. If you want to interpret it as calling out greed, so be it, but I think that good money is hard to turn down for many reasons besides greed. Is it greedy to want to pay off your student loans or provide for your family? There are many people with stories of being unable to find work because they can't hack the modern coding interview process. One way to escape that trap is to take a job working for a defense contractor. I did it. I was over a barrel, facing an insane spousal support payment and I needed a job fast. I took a job with a defense contractor. I'm not proud of it, but I needed to live. Was I motivated by greed?
      - drak0n1c 7y ago
        I see the point but it is a narrow and modernist characterization of other minds on the matter. A lot of perfectly decent people do defense work and don't really need the paychecks (the famous Youtuber SmarterEveryDay comes to mind). Here are a few reasons why: 1) Many work on oft maligned technologies because they simply see no moral conundrum. It's common to see tools as amoral, and believe moral responsibility in the use of tools for good or evil lies solely with its wielder - not any inventor or refiner. 2) Or, they may see their work as their moral duty as a competent professional in a society fending off morally worse alternatives. This is the patriotic or "necessary evil" view. 3) A few utilitarian engineers see the refinement of technology in and of itself as always a subtle moral good, as they believe the elimination of inefficiency is the primary reason why humanity no longer suffers as much as it used to. There's also the assumption that the development of any kind of tech leads to unanticipated benefits to other areas of life (this is a common demonstrated pattern in defense R&D). 4) There's also the classical Greek justification of Eudaimonia. Simply doing what one does best is seen as the most moral thing one can do, as it eliminates any outward and internal dishonesty about ones self. PS: Here is a great video by SmarterEveryDay explaining what he does and why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE

Retra 7y ago

There's no point in taking a stand if it means relinquishing responsibility. You'd rather have weapons in the hands of pacifists than warmongers, but that won't happen if pacifists "conscientiously object" and throw down their arms; police brutality isn't eliminated by making it a job that appeals only to bullies; and software development doesn't become ethical by asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit. What you need is for people to communicate and understand the world well enough that they can find solutions that are as ethical as they are effective.

int_19h 7y ago
I don't see "asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit" software development, though. I'm seeing a call to refuse working on things that are unethical. Most software engineering does not involve working on projects that have immediate side effects that significantly impact human rights and freedoms. To build on your police analogy, this is about asking police officers to refuse to enforce policies such as "stop and frisk".
- Retra 7y ago
  You can't ask individuals to make that decision; they'll just be replaced with ones who are willing. Leadership needs to agree with you. You can't ask people to work at a place while undermining their companies' business plans.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Of course you can ask individuals directly working on such stuff to make that decision. Implementers (who are aware what they're implementing) are just as much responsible for it as the people who gave them directions. In fact, this is just a rehash of the "just following orders" defense, except in this case it's not even orders, since you can walk out on them. Not only that, I seriously doubt that Google would punish anybody who would simply request to not work on that particular project, instead of accommodating them by reassigning to a different team. So this is a very low bar to clear. Does it mean that somebody else will do it? Probably, but responsibility matters. If you're the one who assists in illegal or unethical activities, then you're personally responsible for them.

seppin 7y ago

Good money is hard to turn down, for any reason.

01100011 7y ago
I really wish people wielding the downvotes around here had the principles to avoid downvoting comments because they disagree with the argument. This is not reddit.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  It's an uncharitable low-effort comment labeling HN users with differing opinions as mainly motivated by greed. That kind of comment is discouraged by the rules and is why the downvote feature exists.
  - 01100011 7y ago
    It's low on words but dense with meaning. If you want to interpret it as calling out greed, so be it, but I think that good money is hard to turn down for many reasons besides greed. Is it greedy to want to pay off your student loans or provide for your family? There are many people with stories of being unable to find work because they can't hack the modern coding interview process. One way to escape that trap is to take a job working for a defense contractor. I did it. I was over a barrel, facing an insane spousal support payment and I needed a job fast. I took a job with a defense contractor. I'm not proud of it, but I needed to live. Was I motivated by greed?
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      I see the point but it is a narrow and modernist characterization of other minds on the matter. A lot of perfectly decent people do defense work and don't really need the paychecks (the famous Youtuber SmarterEveryDay comes to mind). Here are a few reasons why: 1) Many work on oft maligned technologies because they simply see no moral conundrum. It's common to see tools as amoral, and believe moral responsibility in the use of tools for good or evil lies solely with its wielder - not any inventor or refiner. 2) Or, they may see their work as their moral duty as a competent professional in a society fending off morally worse alternatives. This is the patriotic or "necessary evil" view. 3) A few utilitarian engineers see the refinement of technology in and of itself as always a subtle moral good, as they believe the elimination of inefficiency is the primary reason why humanity no longer suffers as much as it used to. There's also the assumption that the development of any kind of tech leads to unanticipated benefits to other areas of life (this is a common demonstrated pattern in defense R&D). 4) There's also the classical Greek justification of Eudaimonia. Simply doing what one does best is seen as the most moral thing one can do, as it eliminates any outward and internal dishonesty about ones self. PS: Here is a great video by SmarterEveryDay explaining what he does and why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTYgcdNrXE