3 ms·
Following in the proud tradition of IBM I see [1] and Facebook [2][3]. At this point it may be worth considering creating a professional code of ethics saying s
by zingplex 6y ago
Following in the proud tradition of IBM I see [1] and Facebook [2][3]. At this point it may be worth considering creating a professional code of ethics saying something about genocide being bad.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153277 https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corp...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebook-is-pushing-ethiopia-dangerously-close-to-a-genocide https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebo...
- mgraczyk 6y agoI'd say there is a pretty big difference between actively building software to accomplish a goal, vs failing to remove content posted by others to accomplish their goals.
- zingplex 6y agoI don't think that made what I said any less true. Obviously I'm not saying that Facebook is flagging people to be put in concentration camps or doing anything akin to that. What I am saying is that our industry has been complicit in multiple genocides at this point and I think we should do something about that. When you become a doctor you must take the Hippocratic oath, I don't see any harm in considering adopting something like that.
- mgraczyk 6y agoDoctors don't take an oath that says "I won't give patients tools that could be used to harm others". They take an oath not to do harm themselves.