5 ms·

He talks about tech workers but he leaves out users. We users decide what companies survive. Tech workers work because they need to eat. Users use the tech beca

He talks about tech workers but he leaves out users. We users decide what companies survive. Tech workers work because they need to eat. Users use the tech because it's cool or convenient. We can make plus arguments or minus arguments for both sides but only users decide what companies succeed. If we don't use the tech there is no way for it to succeed. At some point we need to decide if using a service is really worth the overall impact it has in society and decide whether it's worth using. It's time that we as users take more responsibility on what tech is deployed. Is the convenience of tech worth the impact it's having in our society? By most measurements, we are saying yes, emphatically. It's important that we stop saying that the power lies with someone else. We have the power to change the situation too.

stx 6y ago
Its a bit of both users and employees. Users are often not informed. If I describe many of the bad behaviors of tech companies it is often disregarded as crazy conspiracy theory. People will not believe what power some companies have until its completely proven to them. Some users also are willing to ignore bad behavior if it aligns with their belief systems.
- metachor 6y ago
  But it is most definitely not the shareholders. Definitely just the users and employees. Yup. ;)
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
And Raytheon, Palantir, Lockheed-Martin, et. all? They make most of their money with direct government contracts. There's no grey area when directly working on missiles
- jonex 6y ago
  If you vote for politicians that invest in missiles, it's rather hypocritical to criticize people who develop the same missiles. If you happen to be a pacifist it's reasonable to be against all such technology, but the fact that clearly most people aren't makes it odd to single it out as non-grey area. (Unless it's about how it's clearly white-area as it's in service of democratically decided policy.)
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    Absolutely, it's a problem that can be attacked on multiple fronts
- WheelsAtLarge 6y ago
  Well, this is where things get very gray. We are the users of that tech too. The government is us too. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...", as the Constitution says, decide what our government does. It's time we tell our representatives what we want. No more military contracts? Then make sure that no representative that's for those contracts gets elected. It's a matter of getting involved. Like I said, we have the power. It's time we use it.
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    Electoral politics has failed the people time and time again. The only way to prevent these technologies is to organize and strike.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    This deserves a.. LOL.. I think someone forgot to tell you. We don’t live in a democracy. That’s just what they want you to believe, so that you can tell your children fairy tale stories at night.
- pluto9 6y ago
  Missiles (and most other weapons technologies) are definitely a gray area. Yes, producing them means they can be used for bad ends. But not producing them doesn't mean they'll cease to exist. It means you can't challenge anyone else who has them, including bad actors.
- nickff 6y ago
  You seem to assume that working on weapons programs for the military is wrong, and I'm not sure why. Defense (and war) are one of the core reasons for the existence of the US government, and are clearly enumerated in the constitution. Do you think the armed forces should be disbanded? If not, should the armed forces achieve their objectives through the use of obsolete equipment, or would you prefer they simply import it?
  - jeorg 6y ago
    Wanting to abolish the military isn’t the only reason someone would claim it’s unethical to work for defense contractors. Two other reasons come to mind. Firstly, few if any of the conflicts the US is currently engaged in could be described as “just wars”. Secondly, the US is the largest arms exporter in the world, by a large margin. And many of those arms go to dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xg15 6y ago
I don't think this is a valid argument, because it ignores the power imbalance between users and tech companies. A user is on their own, while a tech company has vast resources to nudge or force a user to behave a certain way. There has been conducted vast psychological research how to manipulate users psychologically - e.g. keeping them glued to the screen. Many more detailed choices are taken out of a users hand via forced updates or conscious functionality limititions. often, the only choice a user is left with is to behave exactly in the way the tech company intended - or stop using their product altogether. However, the latter choice might not be possible at all (e.g. if the service is essential or required as part of work or education) - or will incur significant costs, e.g. loss of your extended social network.
odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
I am sorry, but FUCK NO! We as developers are responsible. a developer did this [1]. I don't give a fuck. WE are responsible if we think this is OK because 'we need money'. Developers created shadow profiles. Developers created proxies in their servers so user ad-blocks wouldn't block tracking shit. Developers created tracking pixels. Developers created TikTok that syphons pretty much all data they can. Developers uploaded entire contact lists to servers. Developers created login systems designed as 'find your connections in LinkedIn' to get email informations. Developers created just as much shit as possible, all while getting 200k salaries + fancy fucking sushi at lunch! 'They need money to eat' is no excuse. I think I once read in a comic (PvP maybe?) 'Character is what you do when no-one else is watching'. It is probably paraphrased from someone else, but it is true. We are compliant, we are accessories, we are guilty of this shitty behaviour. Users have their responsibility, but we are the ones that built this and we should shamed to oblivion for supporting this, but just say 'oh but my moneys, I need my fucking shitty avocado toast that fucked the planet to be shipped by airplane from god knows where because... reasons!'. (I am sorry about the extra profanity in this post, but this is something that really annoys me, that I changed my life to be true to what I believe, and it pisses me off) 1 - https://twitter.com/wolfiechristl/status/1071473931784212480 https://twitter.com/wolfiechristl/status/1071473931784212480
- righteous 6y ago
  I agree with you 100%. Over the next hundred years the next waves of human wars genocides and oppression will powered with deadly precession weapons powered by Tensor Flow, the Linux kernel and ARM chips. In that future, Linus Torvalds and the other principle engineers enabling these technologies will be seen as enablers and despicable human scum. How foolish that our licensing policies don’t restrict use towards violence and human suffering.
dafoex 6y ago
Unless, of course, the product is a tool for surveillance and the users are therefore the ones doing the surveillance and not the ones being surveilled. The victim can only do so much to stop this maluse of technology when they aren't the ones making it, aren't the ones using it, and aren't the ones funding it.

stx 6y ago

Its a bit of both users and employees. Users are often not informed. If I describe many of the bad behaviors of tech companies it is often disregarded as crazy conspiracy theory. People will not believe what power some companies have until its completely proven to them. Some users also are willing to ignore bad behavior if it aligns with their belief systems.

metachor 6y ago
But it is most definitely not the shareholders. Definitely just the users and employees. Yup. ;)

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago

And Raytheon, Palantir, Lockheed-Martin, et. all? They make most of their money with direct government contracts. There's no grey area when directly working on missiles

jonex 6y ago
If you vote for politicians that invest in missiles, it's rather hypocritical to criticize people who develop the same missiles. If you happen to be a pacifist it's reasonable to be against all such technology, but the fact that clearly most people aren't makes it odd to single it out as non-grey area. (Unless it's about how it's clearly white-area as it's in service of democratically decided policy.)
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Absolutely, it's a problem that can be attacked on multiple fronts
WheelsAtLarge 6y ago
Well, this is where things get very gray. We are the users of that tech too. The government is us too. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...", as the Constitution says, decide what our government does. It's time we tell our representatives what we want. No more military contracts? Then make sure that no representative that's for those contracts gets elected. It's a matter of getting involved. Like I said, we have the power. It's time we use it.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Electoral politics has failed the people time and time again. The only way to prevent these technologies is to organize and strike.
- blackrock 6y ago
  This deserves a.. LOL.. I think someone forgot to tell you. We don’t live in a democracy. That’s just what they want you to believe, so that you can tell your children fairy tale stories at night.
pluto9 6y ago
Missiles (and most other weapons technologies) are definitely a gray area. Yes, producing them means they can be used for bad ends. But not producing them doesn't mean they'll cease to exist. It means you can't challenge anyone else who has them, including bad actors.
nickff 6y ago
You seem to assume that working on weapons programs for the military is wrong, and I'm not sure why. Defense (and war) are one of the core reasons for the existence of the US government, and are clearly enumerated in the constitution. Do you think the armed forces should be disbanded? If not, should the armed forces achieve their objectives through the use of obsolete equipment, or would you prefer they simply import it?
- jeorg 6y ago
  Wanting to abolish the military isn’t the only reason someone would claim it’s unethical to work for defense contractors. Two other reasons come to mind. Firstly, few if any of the conflicts the US is currently engaged in could be described as “just wars”. Secondly, the US is the largest arms exporter in the world, by a large margin. And many of those arms go to dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xg15 6y ago

I don't think this is a valid argument, because it ignores the power imbalance between users and tech companies. A user is on their own, while a tech company has vast resources to nudge or force a user to behave a certain way. There has been conducted vast psychological research how to manipulate users psychologically - e.g. keeping them glued to the screen. Many more detailed choices are taken out of a users hand via forced updates or conscious functionality limititions. often, the only choice a user is left with is to behave exactly in the way the tech company intended - or stop using their product altogether. However, the latter choice might not be possible at all (e.g. if the service is essential or required as part of work or education) - or will incur significant costs, e.g. loss of your extended social network.

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago

I am sorry, but FUCK NO! We as developers are responsible. a developer did this [1]. I don't give a fuck. WE are responsible if we think this is OK because 'we need money'. Developers created shadow profiles. Developers created proxies in their servers so user ad-blocks wouldn't block tracking shit. Developers created tracking pixels. Developers created TikTok that syphons pretty much all data they can. Developers uploaded entire contact lists to servers. Developers created login systems designed as 'find your connections in LinkedIn' to get email informations. Developers created just as much shit as possible, all while getting 200k salaries + fancy fucking sushi at lunch! 'They need money to eat' is no excuse. I think I once read in a comic (PvP maybe?) 'Character is what you do when no-one else is watching'. It is probably paraphrased from someone else, but it is true. We are compliant, we are accessories, we are guilty of this shitty behaviour. Users have their responsibility, but we are the ones that built this and we should shamed to oblivion for supporting this, but just say 'oh but my moneys, I need my fucking shitty avocado toast that fucked the planet to be shipped by airplane from god knows where because... reasons!'. (I am sorry about the extra profanity in this post, but this is something that really annoys me, that I changed my life to be true to what I believe, and it pisses me off) 1 - https://twitter.com/wolfiechristl/status/1071473931784212480 https://twitter.com/wolfiechristl/status/1071473931784212480

righteous 6y ago
I agree with you 100%. Over the next hundred years the next waves of human wars genocides and oppression will powered with deadly precession weapons powered by Tensor Flow, the Linux kernel and ARM chips. In that future, Linus Torvalds and the other principle engineers enabling these technologies will be seen as enablers and despicable human scum. How foolish that our licensing policies don’t restrict use towards violence and human suffering.

dafoex 6y ago

Unless, of course, the product is a tool for surveillance and the users are therefore the ones doing the surveillance and not the ones being surveilled. The victim can only do so much to stop this maluse of technology when they aren't the ones making it, aren't the ones using it, and aren't the ones funding it.