5 ms·

The cognitive dissonance is certainly strong for any tech worker who cares about ethics, privacy, etc. Sadly it’s not a frequent conversation that I’ve had with

The cognitive dissonance is certainly strong for any tech worker who cares about ethics, privacy, etc. Sadly it’s not a frequent conversation that I’ve had with many others despite having worked in SF for several years now.

soup10 7y ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
- gcp123 7y ago
  This quote perfectly describes my experience of raising the issues of values, ethics, and responsibility with colleagues at Facebook when I worked there.
- bhl 7y ago
  As a corollary of the permanent income hypothesis [1]—or the relative income hypothesis, which ever you’d prefer—people also smooth their morals and ethics over their lifetimes! Maybe the solution here is to align moral incentives from the get-go, a pre-commitment mechanism say in the form of an early aged baptism? /s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis
FussyZeus 7y ago
It shouldn't be the workers job to maintain those ethics, though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for unionizing and all the benefits it brings, but it's not the worker's responsibility to ensure business behaves ethically; that's the job of regulation. They shouldn't have the option to behave unethically in the first place, and the determining factor should absolutely not be if they can find sufficient human resources willing to sacrifice their ethics to feed themselves. I'm all for whistle-blowers of course, but these companies aren't breaking the law, and that's the core problem.
- undefined3840 7y ago
  Well yes I agree in principle but you as a worker voluntarily choose to work somewhere. Sometimes it’s only when you actually start at a job when you realize that there’s a disconnect between a company’s behavior and your own principles.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > voluntarily choose If my workplace tomorrow decided to implement things I ethically disagree with, I cannot in good faith say that I would quit. It's easy to say stuff like that, but when you have a mortgage, have family that depend on you, a home you've put tons of work into, hobbies you love... I mean you can call me a sellout if you want, and I couldn't really disagree, but why is that burden on me? To relieve the politicians of the awful work involved in doing their job? My job is to write code. Their job is to write law. Why must I quit mine and jeopardize my livelihood so they can eschew theirs?
    - Retric 7y ago
      I don’t have a problem with that on day one, but I do think you should start looking for a job in that situation. This results in increased costs via turnover which discourages unethical behavior, and let’s you do something meaningful without pushing the full burden to you.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying, but I still say “just get a different job” is a huge simplification of the issue. An issue which again, I put forward, is not something I should be responsible for fixing.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      It's not either/or; it's both/and. We need politicians that are actually doing their jobs. And we need people with consciences working for tech companies. We need both. As for quitting... if you were a factory worker in a one-company town, you'd be in a worse spot. But I hear that software engineers are in demand these days. And if you're in somewhere like the Bay Area, there are many options available to you. For that matter, there may be many options available to you even within your own company. You may not be able in good conscience to work on that project, but can you transfer teams? And, if you're feeling that it might be useful, tell them why. On the other hand, that leaves such a team with nobody left working on it that has a functioning conscience. That's not ideal, either. But that comes down to your judgment about whether you can actually change the course of the team. If you can't, what's the point in staying?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

soup10 7y ago

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

gcp123 7y ago
This quote perfectly describes my experience of raising the issues of values, ethics, and responsibility with colleagues at Facebook when I worked there.
bhl 7y ago
As a corollary of the permanent income hypothesis [1]—or the relative income hypothesis, which ever you’d prefer—people also smooth their morals and ethics over their lifetimes! Maybe the solution here is to align moral incentives from the get-go, a pre-commitment mechanism say in the form of an early aged baptism? /s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis

FussyZeus 7y ago

It shouldn't be the workers job to maintain those ethics, though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for unionizing and all the benefits it brings, but it's not the worker's responsibility to ensure business behaves ethically; that's the job of regulation. They shouldn't have the option to behave unethically in the first place, and the determining factor should absolutely not be if they can find sufficient human resources willing to sacrifice their ethics to feed themselves. I'm all for whistle-blowers of course, but these companies aren't breaking the law, and that's the core problem.

undefined3840 7y ago
Well yes I agree in principle but you as a worker voluntarily choose to work somewhere. Sometimes it’s only when you actually start at a job when you realize that there’s a disconnect between a company’s behavior and your own principles.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > voluntarily choose If my workplace tomorrow decided to implement things I ethically disagree with, I cannot in good faith say that I would quit. It's easy to say stuff like that, but when you have a mortgage, have family that depend on you, a home you've put tons of work into, hobbies you love... I mean you can call me a sellout if you want, and I couldn't really disagree, but why is that burden on me? To relieve the politicians of the awful work involved in doing their job? My job is to write code. Their job is to write law. Why must I quit mine and jeopardize my livelihood so they can eschew theirs?
  - Retric 7y ago
    I don’t have a problem with that on day one, but I do think you should start looking for a job in that situation. This results in increased costs via turnover which discourages unethical behavior, and let’s you do something meaningful without pushing the full burden to you.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying, but I still say “just get a different job” is a huge simplification of the issue. An issue which again, I put forward, is not something I should be responsible for fixing.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    It's not either/or; it's both/and. We need politicians that are actually doing their jobs. And we need people with consciences working for tech companies. We need both. As for quitting... if you were a factory worker in a one-company town, you'd be in a worse spot. But I hear that software engineers are in demand these days. And if you're in somewhere like the Bay Area, there are many options available to you. For that matter, there may be many options available to you even within your own company. You may not be able in good conscience to work on that project, but can you transfer teams? And, if you're feeling that it might be useful, tell them why. On the other hand, that leaves such a team with nobody left working on it that has a functioning conscience. That's not ideal, either. But that comes down to your judgment about whether you can actually change the course of the team. If you can't, what's the point in staying?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]