8 ms·

>Every last dark pattern and shady thing they are pushing for with engagement, ultimately, he and he alone is is responsible for and condones. This is absolute

>Every last dark pattern and shady thing they are pushing for with engagement, ultimately, he and he alone is is responsible for and condones. This is absolutely 100% FALSE. Every single person who works on those dark and shady patterns are responsible for their actions. They choose to work for evil every single day because the money is more important to them. Why do we give tech employees a moral and ethical pass for the terrible things they do just because they work for a company? These engineers don't work with blinders on, they know that every line they commit is ultimately in service of getting more people addicted, and more clicks on facebook ads. Someone above them may tell them to write that code, but they choose to write each line when they could be working somewhere else. Last I heard, facebook hires supposedly intelligent people, I daresay they'd be able to to get a job elsewhere. They choose not to.

5trokerac3 7y ago
The last thing I am is a FB apologist, but your statement belies a lack of understanding of how large tech organizations work. The development process at a company the size of FB is so fragmented that the number of people who actually have a full view of the sum ethics of the platform generally reside at the Director level or higher. Does the engineer who maintains the code for tagging photos with facial recognition know anything about what happens to that data after? Does the person who works on content filtering algorithms know what language rules another person is going to put into them? Does the person working on optimizing databases know who's been given carte blanche access to that data via APIs? To use an extreme comparison, there's a reason the entire German army wasn't hung at Nuremberg.
- malloreon 7y ago
  My argument is that we are long past the time when an engineer can implement something without thinking about the ethical and moral implications of how their work could be used. And in the case of working at facebook, will most definitely be used.
  - 5trokerac3 7y ago
    I'd never take a job there, but that's different than condemning others who have.
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      I'd say in response to your German Army comparison, what were the options to quit the Landswehr and hire on with another better behaved army? Facebook employees have vastly more options to leave a company that they reasonably know or should know is morally questionable, and quite likely to be able to find other employment. That changes the measures of culpability (or at least compliance) significantly.
      - 5trokerac3 7y ago
        Do they? If you're waiting for a ton of options to vest, how much will you potentially lose by leaving? Where else is there to jump to in the Valley that isn't a startup that could close in a month, or isn't underhandedly conspiring with FB to not to hire each other's employees? If you're lucky enough to own property in Palo Alto - if your kids go to school there, how much do you want to have to commute to a place like the Financial District and have to play human feces hopscotch every day?
        zentiggr 7y ago
        Strawmen - In every moral decision there are inevitably "real world" concerns that make the choices easier or harder, sure. That only changes the costs of the options, not the fact that you are either complicit or choose to leave. Specific to your specifics, if changing circumstances _in_ the Valley is so hard, leave the Valley as well. I live in the Midwest, so my perspective has it's own skew, but SV sounds more and more like a crazy place to even try to live.
        freeopinion 7y ago
        This comment is a great insight into the state of modern thinking on ethics. In this thinking, ethics are determined by economic result. I guarantee you that almost any Facebook employee could walk away with the clothes on their back and find a great school in Wisconsin for their children while they pay cash for a modest home. They could work for any of a hundred employers there that would benefit from their skills. There are schools and jobs waiting in Georgia and Texas and Wyoming. They aren't Valley jobs. But they offer comfortable lives. I appreciate the honesty of the parent post. It's all about the money and lifestyle. The part that makes me blink is that they think this somehow alters the ethics in a positive way.
- vimax 7y ago
  At this point the way Facebook abuses privacy and data is general knowledge to the tech crowd. Anyone working on Facebook knows enough about how the platform works on a high level that claiming innocence through specific technical ignorance is complete nonsense.
  - anderspitman 7y ago
    I wonder what % of Facebook employees actually keep up with this stuff, ie how many of them are regularly on HN, etc? Might be a lot lower than we assume. EDIT: or even how many pay attention to tech news in the mainstream media, for that matter.
    - wasdfff 7y ago
      Probably all of them with options pay good attention.
    - vimax 7y ago
      It's hard to miss when your company is making headline news around the globe with data scandals involving interfering with US elections. It's damn hard to have not heard of Cambridge Analytica or possible Russian interference in the US election. I've seen some internal memos with zuck reassuring the employees how much he cares, those memos aren't written in a vacuum, they are responses to things going on. Are you suggesting that Facebook employees don't read the internal memos sent to them or lack any critical thinking on why they are sent?
      - anderspitman 7y ago
        Oh I'm not suggesting they never hear anything. I'm just wondering how many actually care or look into it at all. The world is full of sensational stories. Sometimes it's easier to just do your job then go home and enjoy your weekends with your family.
- y4mi 7y ago
  so, the developers get executed if they refuse to work for facebook and quit? thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them.
  - hindsightRegret 7y ago
    There are people who quit, but there's always another engineer willing to complete the work they wouldn't. That's the unfortunate reality.
    - zepto 7y ago
      That maybe true, but it is still no reason for someone who is ethical not to quit. Everyone who has a sense of ethics should quit. Then the company will have staff who are in alignment with its goals.
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    > thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them. My historical knowledge of this isn't as detailed as I would hope to have; do you have some suggestions - links, books, etc in regards to the details on the sentencing? I can certainly understand that the higher up the chain you went, the more knowledge of the atrocities you would (or should reasonably) have, but was there a particular "breaking point" where "below this point nobody is charged or even censored"? If so - how was that point decided? What if you were just an everyday Joe-in-the-trenches soldier who was on the front lines, but knew you had neighbors and friends that just "disappeared" and you had doubts or other misgivings? Or what if you were a younger person, and had "snuck around" and seen something strange with the "hidden camps" in the countryside - but then became a soldier a few years on, and those sights as a kid haunted you? Where's the ethical line? If you had a very good and reasonable suspicion that what you were participating in, had actually much more grave consequences for neighbors and fellow citizens - even if you didn't agree with their views politically or morally (let's suppose) - would it be better to avoid being a conscripted soldier and dying, than to participate in what may turn out to be a brutal atrocity on the world stage? I can see the conundrum - that you wouldn't know for sure what the truth was, and since you don't really know for certain, then "fighting for your country" - even if forced - was better than your country killing you (in some manner) because you didn't. But I bet there were more than a few who did say "no" - and I wonder how many of them made it through the camps or other "work detail" where they quickly learned either some horrifying details from other prisoners, overheard conversations of guards, or just what they considered very frightening rumor (that ultimately turned out true)? Those that survived - if any - I wonder if there have been discussions between them and those who joined though they may have had misgivings or doubts? When you start to question and think about this - you begin to see why things are the way they are in Germany today; at the same time, you also wonder how is it that there is still - kinda in the shadows, kinda not - a level of "nationalism" and (possibly?) "German purity" movement in both Germany, and Europe (and the larger world stage). A certain amount of it has to do with propaganda, conspiracy, and the like of course - but what else is driving all of this? Are we (humanity) doomed to repeat this kind of atrocity again and again (that is - genocide and such on a mass scale; while what happened during WW2 was perhaps (?) one of the largest examples in history, it is also - unfortunately - not a unique thing in humanity's history)? I'm also aware of other history that can help explain some of this (that is, the targeting of the Jews - among other groups) - and it potentially goes back millenia, which is both sobering and depressing to realize that we're barely budging the status quo over the years...
- jwr 7y ago
  I think at this point everybody has a full view of the "sum ethics of the platform". Your concept of "innocent individuals/bystanders/cogs" might have been applicable in the past, but we are well past that point.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    I've a friend who joined FB recently and he said, quote, yes yes I know it's evil but it's so interesting. So there you have it in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
    - jwr 7y ago
      Yes — your friend made a choice. Depending on personal ethics, various people might make various choices, but we are well past the point where people did not know what they were getting into.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Are you arguing that the developers have know less than we do? Internally maybe but they certainly have access to the news. There are reasonable arguments for hanging the whole German Army after the war starting with dissuading monstrous wars of aggression with the idea that if we lose we'll all die.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > To use an extreme comparison, there's a reason the entire German army wasn't hung at Nuremberg. An interesting alt-history fiction could be written where that was the case, I bet...
notatoad 7y ago
The software developer who wrote an evil feature bears some responsibility, but that doesn't lessen zuckerberg's responsibility. If the developer is 30% responsible, Zuckerberg's responsibility isn't capped at 70%. he's also responsible for that developer. As the person with sole absolute authority over Facebook, he is 100% responsible for everything that happens, in addition to whatever responsibility the people under him bear
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Basically blame isn't a zero-sum game. Trying to do "blame calculus", figuring out ways to make the numbers add up to 100%, is folly. Two people or more people can be fully to blame at the same time.
- dTal 7y ago
  This is true and insightful. However the phrase your parent responded to was "he and he alone" which they were also correct to object to.
  - Retra 7y ago
    Only if you look at thing 'additively.' Zuckerburg also has the authority to put a stop to any development he likes. The people who work for him do not, really.
  - notatoad 7y ago
    yeah, thanks. i guess i kinda misread that comment.
celticninja 7y ago
But the buck stops with Zuck.
- malloreon 7y ago
  the buck should have stopped at the engineer who wrote the code, and for far too long we've lost sight of that.
  - heymijo 7y ago
    I will push back here though. You pointed out above it isn't Zuckerberg alone who is responsible. It's a systemic effect with many involved. I wrote my original post off the cuff. I might edit it to say that Zuckerberg, as the CEO, sets the tone, and hires the people who build the system and set the culture that either incentivizes/allows/demands these practices (dark patterns, etc.). Individual engineers can take a stand, but without their managers, and those managers' managers backing them, it's a Sissyphean task. The point being, Zuckerberg is ultimately responsible.
    - malloreon 7y ago
      My issue is with the word "ultimately" - to me it is used to throw the burden of making ethical choices off the front line employee and onto a black hole somewhere up the chain of command. Yes, the responsibility is ULTIMATELY on zuck, but for it to reach him, every single person in line has to shrug their shoulders and do the wrong thing because it's more profitable to do so. In that sense, I agree with your push back. However, I lament that we've given tech employees this kind of morality and ethics-free environment to play in.
      - scottlegrand2 7y ago
        It's a lot easier to liquidate one's stock in a company like Facebook than it is to find another position in the valley. And I suspect that a lot of people are leaving Facebook over its conduct and they will continue to do so but some are going to stay. What Facebook is doing isn't any worse than what the tobacco companies did and the tobacco companies are all still here. I don't know anyone who brags about working for them though. IMO quitting in a huff over issues like this causes damage to one's career that one really ought to avoid. I left my previous gig over cultural issues and I nearly got labeled a job hopper for doing so. I'd suggest taking the long view and let's see what happens with all the tech companies that are now doing morally questionable things. It feels like there's been a phase transition in mood in the valley in the past 2 years.
mjfl 7y ago
> They choose to work for evil that's quite an extreme view. Have you ever considered you might be mistaken?
- Frondo 7y ago
  I agree with the parent poster, and yes, I consider all the time whether I'm mistaken. I can't even shut off the part of my brain that double-checks and questions my thoughts and views, on Facebook or anything else. Do you want to try to make a case for Facebook being good or even benign, or did you just want to check in if we're conducting regular introspection? (And, off the top of my head, the things Facebook does that nudge it into "evil": persuading media to move to video by lying about viewership statistics, gaming the algorithms to maximize engagement in the style of a Skinner box, in at least one case intentionally trying to depress people through feed manipulation, turning a blind eye to electoral interference, all the dark patterns surrounding getting people's personal information, the shady ways they share that information, and if I sat here and literally thought about it instead of producing a list as I typed it out, I'd come up with more. This is not what a good or benign corporation does. Doing these things is not compatible with being good or benign.)
- randolando 7y ago
  Have you?
- malloreon 7y ago
  about whether facebook is evil? Not in the last decade, and I have a hunch most addicted users agree. It's been years since I've even seen a pro-facebook take on HN, let alone anywhere else. Most people echo something similar to "I don't like it, but everyone else is there, and I don't want to feel left out."
  - mjfl 7y ago
    I just think words like "evil" and "addiction" are a little histrionic. No one has physical withdrawal symptoms when they've been away from Facebook for a week. At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. Otherwise, how could any form of advertising be legal?
heymijo 7y ago
You're right. Thanks for calling that out.
quotemstr 7y ago
Who gets to pass judgement on engineers for writing code? Who decides what code is ethical? You? Why should anyone listen to you on this matter? Why not me? Why not my dog? The shareholder system of control is at least honest and transparent. Calls for moral boycotts are either ineffective or put power in the hands of the self-righteous, and I think that's far more dangerous than shareholder votes.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  The, "I'm just doing my job" defense was pretty well debunked at Nuremberg.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    There's a reason Godwin's law exists. Once you start comparing people and ideas to Nazis, you can't have a nuanced and intelligent conversation.
    - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
      Don't act like a spade if you don't want to be called a spade. Its about the concept of personal responsibility. We are all always responsible for everything we do. The debate is over, its been litigated, there is no nuanced or intelligent position that defends the assertion that you aren't responsible for your own actions whether you are getting paid by someone else or not.
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        > there is no nuanced or intelligent position that defends the assertion that you aren't responsible for your own actions Such a position is a longstanding feature of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity I get that some people don't want these principles to exist and would prefer personal liability in everything, but I would suggest that these people be very careful what they wish for.
mekane8 7y ago
I would say Zuck is "Accountable" for all of the dark patterns and shady things. That's on him as CEO. The teams that implemented them and the management that signed off all share responsibility. I'm thinking in terms of a RACI matrix.
- heymijo 7y ago
  Accountable is a good word for it. Accountability can't be shared, while responsibility can be. BTW, I had to look up RACI matrix as I've only ever heard of it. Is this a popular project tool at the moment? Do you use it?
joejerryronnie 7y ago
You can literally extrapolate this out to any large corporation. I guarantee I could find something shady your employer has/is doing. Does this mean you support evil and the paycheck is more important to you than the welfare of mankind?

5trokerac3 7y ago

The last thing I am is a FB apologist, but your statement belies a lack of understanding of how large tech organizations work. The development process at a company the size of FB is so fragmented that the number of people who actually have a full view of the sum ethics of the platform generally reside at the Director level or higher. Does the engineer who maintains the code for tagging photos with facial recognition know anything about what happens to that data after? Does the person who works on content filtering algorithms know what language rules another person is going to put into them? Does the person working on optimizing databases know who's been given carte blanche access to that data via APIs? To use an extreme comparison, there's a reason the entire German army wasn't hung at Nuremberg.

malloreon 7y ago
My argument is that we are long past the time when an engineer can implement something without thinking about the ethical and moral implications of how their work could be used. And in the case of working at facebook, will most definitely be used.
- 5trokerac3 7y ago
  I'd never take a job there, but that's different than condemning others who have.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    I'd say in response to your German Army comparison, what were the options to quit the Landswehr and hire on with another better behaved army? Facebook employees have vastly more options to leave a company that they reasonably know or should know is morally questionable, and quite likely to be able to find other employment. That changes the measures of culpability (or at least compliance) significantly.
    - 5trokerac3 7y ago
      Do they? If you're waiting for a ton of options to vest, how much will you potentially lose by leaving? Where else is there to jump to in the Valley that isn't a startup that could close in a month, or isn't underhandedly conspiring with FB to not to hire each other's employees? If you're lucky enough to own property in Palo Alto - if your kids go to school there, how much do you want to have to commute to a place like the Financial District and have to play human feces hopscotch every day?
      - zentiggr 7y ago
        Strawmen - In every moral decision there are inevitably "real world" concerns that make the choices easier or harder, sure. That only changes the costs of the options, not the fact that you are either complicit or choose to leave. Specific to your specifics, if changing circumstances _in_ the Valley is so hard, leave the Valley as well. I live in the Midwest, so my perspective has it's own skew, but SV sounds more and more like a crazy place to even try to live.
      - freeopinion 7y ago
        This comment is a great insight into the state of modern thinking on ethics. In this thinking, ethics are determined by economic result. I guarantee you that almost any Facebook employee could walk away with the clothes on their back and find a great school in Wisconsin for their children while they pay cash for a modest home. They could work for any of a hundred employers there that would benefit from their skills. There are schools and jobs waiting in Georgia and Texas and Wyoming. They aren't Valley jobs. But they offer comfortable lives. I appreciate the honesty of the parent post. It's all about the money and lifestyle. The part that makes me blink is that they think this somehow alters the ethics in a positive way.
vimax 7y ago
At this point the way Facebook abuses privacy and data is general knowledge to the tech crowd. Anyone working on Facebook knows enough about how the platform works on a high level that claiming innocence through specific technical ignorance is complete nonsense.
- anderspitman 7y ago
  I wonder what % of Facebook employees actually keep up with this stuff, ie how many of them are regularly on HN, etc? Might be a lot lower than we assume. EDIT: or even how many pay attention to tech news in the mainstream media, for that matter.
  - wasdfff 7y ago
    Probably all of them with options pay good attention.
  - vimax 7y ago
    It's hard to miss when your company is making headline news around the globe with data scandals involving interfering with US elections. It's damn hard to have not heard of Cambridge Analytica or possible Russian interference in the US election. I've seen some internal memos with zuck reassuring the employees how much he cares, those memos aren't written in a vacuum, they are responses to things going on. Are you suggesting that Facebook employees don't read the internal memos sent to them or lack any critical thinking on why they are sent?
    - anderspitman 7y ago
      Oh I'm not suggesting they never hear anything. I'm just wondering how many actually care or look into it at all. The world is full of sensational stories. Sometimes it's easier to just do your job then go home and enjoy your weekends with your family.
y4mi 7y ago
so, the developers get executed if they refuse to work for facebook and quit? thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them.
- hindsightRegret 7y ago
  There are people who quit, but there's always another engineer willing to complete the work they wouldn't. That's the unfortunate reality.
  - zepto 7y ago
    That maybe true, but it is still no reason for someone who is ethical not to quit. Everyone who has a sense of ethics should quit. Then the company will have staff who are in alignment with its goals.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > thats the actual reason why soldiers were spared in Nürnberg: because a lot of the army didn't actually have a choice. It was death or collaboration for them. My historical knowledge of this isn't as detailed as I would hope to have; do you have some suggestions - links, books, etc in regards to the details on the sentencing? I can certainly understand that the higher up the chain you went, the more knowledge of the atrocities you would (or should reasonably) have, but was there a particular "breaking point" where "below this point nobody is charged or even censored"? If so - how was that point decided? What if you were just an everyday Joe-in-the-trenches soldier who was on the front lines, but knew you had neighbors and friends that just "disappeared" and you had doubts or other misgivings? Or what if you were a younger person, and had "snuck around" and seen something strange with the "hidden camps" in the countryside - but then became a soldier a few years on, and those sights as a kid haunted you? Where's the ethical line? If you had a very good and reasonable suspicion that what you were participating in, had actually much more grave consequences for neighbors and fellow citizens - even if you didn't agree with their views politically or morally (let's suppose) - would it be better to avoid being a conscripted soldier and dying, than to participate in what may turn out to be a brutal atrocity on the world stage? I can see the conundrum - that you wouldn't know for sure what the truth was, and since you don't really know for certain, then "fighting for your country" - even if forced - was better than your country killing you (in some manner) because you didn't. But I bet there were more than a few who did say "no" - and I wonder how many of them made it through the camps or other "work detail" where they quickly learned either some horrifying details from other prisoners, overheard conversations of guards, or just what they considered very frightening rumor (that ultimately turned out true)? Those that survived - if any - I wonder if there have been discussions between them and those who joined though they may have had misgivings or doubts? When you start to question and think about this - you begin to see why things are the way they are in Germany today; at the same time, you also wonder how is it that there is still - kinda in the shadows, kinda not - a level of "nationalism" and (possibly?) "German purity" movement in both Germany, and Europe (and the larger world stage). A certain amount of it has to do with propaganda, conspiracy, and the like of course - but what else is driving all of this? Are we (humanity) doomed to repeat this kind of atrocity again and again (that is - genocide and such on a mass scale; while what happened during WW2 was perhaps (?) one of the largest examples in history, it is also - unfortunately - not a unique thing in humanity's history)? I'm also aware of other history that can help explain some of this (that is, the targeting of the Jews - among other groups) - and it potentially goes back millenia, which is both sobering and depressing to realize that we're barely budging the status quo over the years...
jwr 7y ago
I think at this point everybody has a full view of the "sum ethics of the platform". Your concept of "innocent individuals/bystanders/cogs" might have been applicable in the past, but we are well past that point.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  I've a friend who joined FB recently and he said, quote, yes yes I know it's evil but it's so interesting. So there you have it in a nutshell straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
  - jwr 7y ago
    Yes — your friend made a choice. Depending on personal ethics, various people might make various choices, but we are well past the point where people did not know what they were getting into.
michaelmrose 7y ago
Are you arguing that the developers have know less than we do? Internally maybe but they certainly have access to the news. There are reasonable arguments for hanging the whole German Army after the war starting with dissuading monstrous wars of aggression with the idea that if we lose we'll all die.
cr0sh 7y ago
> To use an extreme comparison, there's a reason the entire German army wasn't hung at Nuremberg. An interesting alt-history fiction could be written where that was the case, I bet...

notatoad 7y ago

The software developer who wrote an evil feature bears some responsibility, but that doesn't lessen zuckerberg's responsibility. If the developer is 30% responsible, Zuckerberg's responsibility isn't capped at 70%. he's also responsible for that developer. As the person with sole absolute authority over Facebook, he is 100% responsible for everything that happens, in addition to whatever responsibility the people under him bear

darkpuma 7y ago
Basically blame isn't a zero-sum game. Trying to do "blame calculus", figuring out ways to make the numbers add up to 100%, is folly. Two people or more people can be fully to blame at the same time.
dTal 7y ago
This is true and insightful. However the phrase your parent responded to was "he and he alone" which they were also correct to object to.
- Retra 7y ago
  Only if you look at thing 'additively.' Zuckerburg also has the authority to put a stop to any development he likes. The people who work for him do not, really.
- notatoad 7y ago
  yeah, thanks. i guess i kinda misread that comment.

celticninja 7y ago

But the buck stops with Zuck.

malloreon 7y ago
the buck should have stopped at the engineer who wrote the code, and for far too long we've lost sight of that.
- heymijo 7y ago
  I will push back here though. You pointed out above it isn't Zuckerberg alone who is responsible. It's a systemic effect with many involved. I wrote my original post off the cuff. I might edit it to say that Zuckerberg, as the CEO, sets the tone, and hires the people who build the system and set the culture that either incentivizes/allows/demands these practices (dark patterns, etc.). Individual engineers can take a stand, but without their managers, and those managers' managers backing them, it's a Sissyphean task. The point being, Zuckerberg is ultimately responsible.
  - malloreon 7y ago
    My issue is with the word "ultimately" - to me it is used to throw the burden of making ethical choices off the front line employee and onto a black hole somewhere up the chain of command. Yes, the responsibility is ULTIMATELY on zuck, but for it to reach him, every single person in line has to shrug their shoulders and do the wrong thing because it's more profitable to do so. In that sense, I agree with your push back. However, I lament that we've given tech employees this kind of morality and ethics-free environment to play in.
    - scottlegrand2 7y ago
      It's a lot easier to liquidate one's stock in a company like Facebook than it is to find another position in the valley. And I suspect that a lot of people are leaving Facebook over its conduct and they will continue to do so but some are going to stay. What Facebook is doing isn't any worse than what the tobacco companies did and the tobacco companies are all still here. I don't know anyone who brags about working for them though. IMO quitting in a huff over issues like this causes damage to one's career that one really ought to avoid. I left my previous gig over cultural issues and I nearly got labeled a job hopper for doing so. I'd suggest taking the long view and let's see what happens with all the tech companies that are now doing morally questionable things. It feels like there's been a phase transition in mood in the valley in the past 2 years.

mjfl 7y ago

> They choose to work for evil that's quite an extreme view. Have you ever considered you might be mistaken?

Frondo 7y ago
I agree with the parent poster, and yes, I consider all the time whether I'm mistaken. I can't even shut off the part of my brain that double-checks and questions my thoughts and views, on Facebook or anything else. Do you want to try to make a case for Facebook being good or even benign, or did you just want to check in if we're conducting regular introspection? (And, off the top of my head, the things Facebook does that nudge it into "evil": persuading media to move to video by lying about viewership statistics, gaming the algorithms to maximize engagement in the style of a Skinner box, in at least one case intentionally trying to depress people through feed manipulation, turning a blind eye to electoral interference, all the dark patterns surrounding getting people's personal information, the shady ways they share that information, and if I sat here and literally thought about it instead of producing a list as I typed it out, I'd come up with more. This is not what a good or benign corporation does. Doing these things is not compatible with being good or benign.)
randolando 7y ago
Have you?
malloreon 7y ago
about whether facebook is evil? Not in the last decade, and I have a hunch most addicted users agree. It's been years since I've even seen a pro-facebook take on HN, let alone anywhere else. Most people echo something similar to "I don't like it, but everyone else is there, and I don't want to feel left out."
- mjfl 7y ago
  I just think words like "evil" and "addiction" are a little histrionic. No one has physical withdrawal symptoms when they've been away from Facebook for a week. At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. Otherwise, how could any form of advertising be legal?

heymijo 7y ago

You're right. Thanks for calling that out.

quotemstr 7y ago

Who gets to pass judgement on engineers for writing code? Who decides what code is ethical? You? Why should anyone listen to you on this matter? Why not me? Why not my dog? The shareholder system of control is at least honest and transparent. Calls for moral boycotts are either ineffective or put power in the hands of the self-righteous, and I think that's far more dangerous than shareholder votes.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The, "I'm just doing my job" defense was pretty well debunked at Nuremberg.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  There's a reason Godwin's law exists. Once you start comparing people and ideas to Nazis, you can't have a nuanced and intelligent conversation.
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    Don't act like a spade if you don't want to be called a spade. Its about the concept of personal responsibility. We are all always responsible for everything we do. The debate is over, its been litigated, there is no nuanced or intelligent position that defends the assertion that you aren't responsible for your own actions whether you are getting paid by someone else or not.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      > there is no nuanced or intelligent position that defends the assertion that you aren't responsible for your own actions Such a position is a longstanding feature of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity I get that some people don't want these principles to exist and would prefer personal liability in everything, but I would suggest that these people be very careful what they wish for.

mekane8 7y ago

I would say Zuck is "Accountable" for all of the dark patterns and shady things. That's on him as CEO. The teams that implemented them and the management that signed off all share responsibility. I'm thinking in terms of a RACI matrix.

heymijo 7y ago
Accountable is a good word for it. Accountability can't be shared, while responsibility can be. BTW, I had to look up RACI matrix as I've only ever heard of it. Is this a popular project tool at the moment? Do you use it?

joejerryronnie 7y ago

You can literally extrapolate this out to any large corporation. I guarantee I could find something shady your employer has/is doing. Does this mean you support evil and the paycheck is more important to you than the welfare of mankind?