3 ms·

This feels a bit flippant. There's nothing inherent to the software managing the process that leads to the exploitation of these workers. It's the unattainable

• edoceo 6y ago
  And heres a person that could act against exploitation and instead chooses to just follow orders. If you're not part of the solution then what are you?
  • Jochim 6y ago
    They aren't being ordered to do anything though. The system that was built isn't the thing setting the targets, the users are. We wouldn't argue that the creators of email are responsible for any exploitation that email has enabled and I don't think it's reasonable to argue that a developer for a delivery routing system is responsible for the incentive structure set up around that system after it has been built.
    • edoceo 6y ago
      That's a crap analogy and you know it. Email started as a federated, open system. This Amazon is closed, for profit. Everyone there is part of the problem and excuses their behavior with bullshit like "I'm only working on a small percentage of the exploitation". Is everyone so bad a maths now you've forgotten that 10 tenths makes a one?
      • gameman144 6y ago
        That's definitely one world view, that people are responsible for how people use the things they create. Nothing wrong with it. I'd hold a different world view, in which individuals who have good intentions shouldn't be blamed for their work getting bastardized or leveraged in unethical ways. In this case, it seems totally reasonable that an engineer on this project would assume that their work would reward efficiency (which it does), and not be gamed to reward exploitation (which it apparently also does). Different strokes for different folks, I guess.