3 ms·

This is inflammatory. The truth is some people just don't care about these implications. You can find people in this very thread arguing that it isn't Facebooks

This is inflammatory. The truth is some people just don't care about these implications. You can find people in this very thread arguing that it isn't Facebooks responsibility to filter these (whether or not you agree is not the issue, it is a valid position). Calling engineers who do not fit your narrow view "amoral" is disingenuous.

ajna91 7y ago
Which is it? That they don't care, or they care but disagree? The first seems to be pretty much the definition of "amoral". "Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something."
- sl1ck731 7y ago
  Using amoral implies there is at least a consensus on what is moral and they are acting opposite to it. This is an entire conversation on what is even moral to begin with. It is smearing someone by associating your "morality" to a particularly grey area.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    This just in folks, we can't actually condemn an action until the entire field of ethics is solved. There is actually zero difference between good and bad things dril tweet etc.
    - sl1ck731 7y ago
      You can condemn whatever you want. I don't care either way in this particular case. If you'll notice I commented on the inflammatory nature of the post directed towards the workers, not condemning the policies that make it possible. But hey, this just in folks, smugness will help everyone come to an agreement.
      - ahelwer 7y ago
        Engineers at Facebook make $100k+ a year and have absolutely no standing to shirk moral responsibility. By all means they should be called out. More effective than deflecting to some vague unaccountable company policy.
        sl1ck731 7y ago
        By that description, anyone working for Google, Amazon, Microsoft are inherently immoral. If you are willing to cast a large net for your own grievances then you should demonize the rest, as those companies do things that you might not find particularly important but others find "immoral".
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        They are and our community sees Facebook, Google, Amazon and Microsoft as generally committing many of the same sins. We are not charitable in our views of them or their employees. You can tell by the comments on Hacker News.
  - wordsworst 7y ago
    It’s literally the opposite. “Opposed to moral consensus” is immoral. “Grey area” is definitionally amoral. You’re complaining because “amoral” still sounds like a bad thing to call someone. And it is, exactly because history doesn’t tend to see that “it seemed like a grey area at the time” defense very charitably.
    - mlurp 7y ago
      Wait, is that right? I thought your definition of immoral there is correct. But I thought that "gray area" means a person has morals, but the goodness of the topic is tricky to decide, while "amoral" just means the person doesn't even have a "right and wrong" scale, or doesn't care.
chance_state 7y ago
>This is inflammatory. Sometimes the truth is inflammatory. I think it's hard to argue at this point that Facebook is not a force for evil in the world. Engineers spending their productive years to further this evil company should feel some shame.
sixstringtheory 7y ago
> The truth is some people just don't care I don’t buy that. They either are ignorant (which is fine, until the point they become aware of it–I really doubt many people at FB are ignorant of the social issues it brings up), or they inevitably are aware and have rationalized why it is or is not an issue. I’m not saying it is FB’s absolute responsibility. I’m saying it is the responsibility of each individual who works there. There’s a difference. Corporations are not people, the people in them are what make possible the goods or evils the corporations use to make money and thrive. The pen is mightier than the sword. Social media is mightier than the atom bomb. People need to act accordingly. Morals are the impetus of action so I’d say they are highly relevant.

ajna91 7y ago

Which is it? That they don't care, or they care but disagree? The first seems to be pretty much the definition of "amoral". "Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something."

sl1ck731 7y ago
Using amoral implies there is at least a consensus on what is moral and they are acting opposite to it. This is an entire conversation on what is even moral to begin with. It is smearing someone by associating your "morality" to a particularly grey area.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  This just in folks, we can't actually condemn an action until the entire field of ethics is solved. There is actually zero difference between good and bad things dril tweet etc.
  - sl1ck731 7y ago
    You can condemn whatever you want. I don't care either way in this particular case. If you'll notice I commented on the inflammatory nature of the post directed towards the workers, not condemning the policies that make it possible. But hey, this just in folks, smugness will help everyone come to an agreement.
    - ahelwer 7y ago
      Engineers at Facebook make $100k+ a year and have absolutely no standing to shirk moral responsibility. By all means they should be called out. More effective than deflecting to some vague unaccountable company policy.
      - sl1ck731 7y ago
        By that description, anyone working for Google, Amazon, Microsoft are inherently immoral. If you are willing to cast a large net for your own grievances then you should demonize the rest, as those companies do things that you might not find particularly important but others find "immoral".
        birdyrooster 7y ago
        They are and our community sees Facebook, Google, Amazon and Microsoft as generally committing many of the same sins. We are not charitable in our views of them or their employees. You can tell by the comments on Hacker News.
- wordsworst 7y ago
  It’s literally the opposite. “Opposed to moral consensus” is immoral. “Grey area” is definitionally amoral. You’re complaining because “amoral” still sounds like a bad thing to call someone. And it is, exactly because history doesn’t tend to see that “it seemed like a grey area at the time” defense very charitably.
  - mlurp 7y ago
    Wait, is that right? I thought your definition of immoral there is correct. But I thought that "gray area" means a person has morals, but the goodness of the topic is tricky to decide, while "amoral" just means the person doesn't even have a "right and wrong" scale, or doesn't care.

chance_state 7y ago

>This is inflammatory. Sometimes the truth is inflammatory. I think it's hard to argue at this point that Facebook is not a force for evil in the world. Engineers spending their productive years to further this evil company should feel some shame.

sixstringtheory 7y ago

> The truth is some people just don't care I don’t buy that. They either are ignorant (which is fine, until the point they become aware of it–I really doubt many people at FB are ignorant of the social issues it brings up), or they inevitably are aware and have rationalized why it is or is not an issue. I’m not saying it is FB’s absolute responsibility. I’m saying it is the responsibility of each individual who works there. There’s a difference. Corporations are not people, the people in them are what make possible the goods or evils the corporations use to make money and thrive. The pen is mightier than the sword. Social media is mightier than the atom bomb. People need to act accordingly. Morals are the impetus of action so I’d say they are highly relevant.