6 ms·

When I tell people to grow a pair and say no, they tell me to grow up, it's not how the "real" world works, they say. The fact is, they have no role models to l

When I tell people to grow a pair and say no, they tell me to grow up, it's not how the "real" world works, they say. The fact is, they have no role models to look up to and teach them how to say no to corruption and immoral or unethical behavior.

pb7 7y ago
It’s easy to lambast people for their decisions when you don’t have to bear the associated cost.
- behringer 7y ago
  That argument doesn't work on me just like it does not work on your judge or your parole officer. I've given up quite a bit over the years.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    It should though - because the obligation is to the law and not ethics. While it is certainly messed up morally and a reflection of twisted norms there is a point about social contracts and expectations. One can argue it is wrong for a bystander to lock and bar the door in a mass shooting or not attempt an ambush of a shooter as they got closer but there is no expectation to risk their life like that and such outside demands of bravado would be wrong. Unreasonable demands make a parody of justice no matter the potential outcome. That said it is possible for multiple people to be in the wrong in multiple dimensions and there is room for nuance. Robbing a bank is wrong, but doing so when under duress saying that the robber should be punished would be wrong but not if they were instead tasked to outright murder.
    - behringer 7y ago
      Maybe your obligation is to the law but that doesn't mean everybody else should be. The law of the US is corrupt and immoral in countless ways. Anybody who is "law abiding" and nothing else is corrupt to the core.
- FisDugthop 7y ago
  It's easy to make unethical technical decisions when you don't have to bear the cost, either. And yet, we expect better from people.
ditonal 7y ago
The other favorite arguments are, "if we don't do <unethical> thing, someone else will, therefore it's ethical". I call it the "selling crack to teenagers" argument but it was the go-to by Google employees defending the autoaim killbot project Maven. There was also an idea that, Google employees are the "good guys" compared to "evil Amazon", therefore when Google does something, it's de facto good, and it's better for Google to do the unethical thing since they will do it less unethically than Amazon. Google employees care a lot about their "TC" and "GSUs" - that's it. What bugs me is that at least Goldman employees and their ilk kind of have that tacit acknowledgement that they are in it for the lucre. A lot of Googlers really act like they are in it for the greater good even when the company picks money over ethics at literally every junction.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  I faced this when I worked at a company that was building a custom fundraising platform for the Catholic Church while the church was spending millions to lobby states not to modify statute of limitations to benefit victims of sex abuse[0]. This is a publicly traded company that explicitly states its mission as “helping the world do good”, and the executive team used the exact same argument when someone questioned them on this during an all-hands meeting. It was one of the most demoralizing moments of my career. 0: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-10-million-lobbyists-fight-extension-statutes-of-limitations-child-sex-abuse-vicims/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-1...
  - tropo 7y ago
    It's easy to hate on those accused of heinous crimes (both the person and their employer) but what about the concept of a fair trial? Imagine you were accused of doing something decades ago. Do you have an alibi for December 17, 1955? (adjust if you are younger, or imagine being accused of today's crime in 2077) You will have lost receipts, calendars, and ticket stubs. The people you were with, who could have served as witnesses, are long dead. You'll go up against a jury that hears a tragic story about some helpless child you supposedly harmed. Good luck with that. It's especially bad that changes in statue of limitations don't just apply going forward. It really feels like ex-post-facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. Cases from about 70 years back are pushing Scouting BSA into Chapter 11.
noxToken 7y ago
Sometimes saying "Yes" or "No" is the difference between having a job the next day or being unemployed. It would be different if everyone was declining unethical development, but there is surely someone to replace you. 3 months without work can really crush people - especially those who have a family to support with no safety net. This isn't always about role models and being upstanding citizens. A lot of us in this field are fortunate enough to be able to decline work based on ethical stances. Anyone can say no. Can they afford the consequences?
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Any engineer working for Google or Facebook can go get another job tomorrow. Maybe it won't pay quite as much, but it will still pay very very well in absolute terms. If the "consequence" of making ethical career choices is you earn only $250,000/year instead of $300,000/year, you should probably reflect on why you value your soul so cheaply.
  - noxToken 7y ago
    Not everyone works for Google, Facebook, or a prestigious tech company. There are smaller companies making ethically questionable choices with customer data. Not all tech workers are employed by prestigious tech companies.
  - pb7 7y ago
    Can you name some ethical companies that pay $250K/year to people with just a few years of experience? I would love to apply.
    - behringer 7y ago
      Your children will remember you fondly as the man who had no moral center, but at least bought them a car.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
dylan604 7y ago
Have you ever countered by asking these same individuals if they would be okay working in defense contractors or oil&gas or pharmaceutical. I've heard from some younger people that are very much opposed to the above list, but have not equated the privacy violators into the same category of "evil".
- golemiprague 7y ago
  But I use oil, gas and pharmaceutical products as well as relying on the army to defend me. So why shouldn't I work for them? I find it unethical to benefit from their work but not wanting to contribute.
notacoward 7y ago
> When I tell people to grow a pair Putting it in such an offensive way undercuts any moral claims you might make. Maybe that's why you get such strong push-back. People don't choose to work for "evil" companies out of fear. Some just don't think about it. Some just don't care. Neither of those make their decisions right, but that's not the same as fear either. Some people have different ideas of what's right. Some people believe they can turn something that's currently negative into something more positive. Agree or disagree, it's still not about fear. "Grow a pair" isn't an argument. It's an attack, and people respond to it as such. If you wanted to make an effective argument instead of just giving yourself a dopamine hit, you might try engaging with the actual reasons people decide as they do.

pb7 7y ago

It’s easy to lambast people for their decisions when you don’t have to bear the associated cost.

behringer 7y ago
That argument doesn't work on me just like it does not work on your judge or your parole officer. I've given up quite a bit over the years.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It should though - because the obligation is to the law and not ethics. While it is certainly messed up morally and a reflection of twisted norms there is a point about social contracts and expectations. One can argue it is wrong for a bystander to lock and bar the door in a mass shooting or not attempt an ambush of a shooter as they got closer but there is no expectation to risk their life like that and such outside demands of bravado would be wrong. Unreasonable demands make a parody of justice no matter the potential outcome. That said it is possible for multiple people to be in the wrong in multiple dimensions and there is room for nuance. Robbing a bank is wrong, but doing so when under duress saying that the robber should be punished would be wrong but not if they were instead tasked to outright murder.
  - behringer 7y ago
    Maybe your obligation is to the law but that doesn't mean everybody else should be. The law of the US is corrupt and immoral in countless ways. Anybody who is "law abiding" and nothing else is corrupt to the core.
FisDugthop 7y ago
It's easy to make unethical technical decisions when you don't have to bear the cost, either. And yet, we expect better from people.

ditonal 7y ago

The other favorite arguments are, "if we don't do <unethical> thing, someone else will, therefore it's ethical". I call it the "selling crack to teenagers" argument but it was the go-to by Google employees defending the autoaim killbot project Maven. There was also an idea that, Google employees are the "good guys" compared to "evil Amazon", therefore when Google does something, it's de facto good, and it's better for Google to do the unethical thing since they will do it less unethically than Amazon. Google employees care a lot about their "TC" and "GSUs" - that's it. What bugs me is that at least Goldman employees and their ilk kind of have that tacit acknowledgement that they are in it for the lucre. A lot of Googlers really act like they are in it for the greater good even when the company picks money over ethics at literally every junction.

save_ferris 7y ago
I faced this when I worked at a company that was building a custom fundraising platform for the Catholic Church while the church was spending millions to lobby states not to modify statute of limitations to benefit victims of sex abuse[0]. This is a publicly traded company that explicitly states its mission as “helping the world do good”, and the executive team used the exact same argument when someone questioned them on this during an all-hands meeting. It was one of the most demoralizing moments of my career. 0: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-10-million-lobbyists-fight-extension-statutes-of-limitations-child-sex-abuse-vicims/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-1...
- tropo 7y ago
  It's easy to hate on those accused of heinous crimes (both the person and their employer) but what about the concept of a fair trial? Imagine you were accused of doing something decades ago. Do you have an alibi for December 17, 1955? (adjust if you are younger, or imagine being accused of today's crime in 2077) You will have lost receipts, calendars, and ticket stubs. The people you were with, who could have served as witnesses, are long dead. You'll go up against a jury that hears a tragic story about some helpless child you supposedly harmed. Good luck with that. It's especially bad that changes in statue of limitations don't just apply going forward. It really feels like ex-post-facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. Cases from about 70 years back are pushing Scouting BSA into Chapter 11.

noxToken 7y ago

Sometimes saying "Yes" or "No" is the difference between having a job the next day or being unemployed. It would be different if everyone was declining unethical development, but there is surely someone to replace you. 3 months without work can really crush people - especially those who have a family to support with no safety net. This isn't always about role models and being upstanding citizens. A lot of us in this field are fortunate enough to be able to decline work based on ethical stances. Anyone can say no. Can they afford the consequences?

ForHackernews 7y ago
Any engineer working for Google or Facebook can go get another job tomorrow. Maybe it won't pay quite as much, but it will still pay very very well in absolute terms. If the "consequence" of making ethical career choices is you earn only $250,000/year instead of $300,000/year, you should probably reflect on why you value your soul so cheaply.
- noxToken 7y ago
  Not everyone works for Google, Facebook, or a prestigious tech company. There are smaller companies making ethically questionable choices with customer data. Not all tech workers are employed by prestigious tech companies.
- pb7 7y ago
  Can you name some ethical companies that pay $250K/year to people with just a few years of experience? I would love to apply.
  - behringer 7y ago
    Your children will remember you fondly as the man who had no moral center, but at least bought them a car.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

dylan604 7y ago

Have you ever countered by asking these same individuals if they would be okay working in defense contractors or oil&gas or pharmaceutical. I've heard from some younger people that are very much opposed to the above list, but have not equated the privacy violators into the same category of "evil".

golemiprague 7y ago
But I use oil, gas and pharmaceutical products as well as relying on the army to defend me. So why shouldn't I work for them? I find it unethical to benefit from their work but not wanting to contribute.

notacoward 7y ago

> When I tell people to grow a pair Putting it in such an offensive way undercuts any moral claims you might make. Maybe that's why you get such strong push-back. People don't choose to work for "evil" companies out of fear. Some just don't think about it. Some just don't care. Neither of those make their decisions right, but that's not the same as fear either. Some people have different ideas of what's right. Some people believe they can turn something that's currently negative into something more positive. Agree or disagree, it's still not about fear. "Grow a pair" isn't an argument. It's an attack, and people respond to it as such. If you wanted to make an effective argument instead of just giving yourself a dopamine hit, you might try engaging with the actual reasons people decide as they do.