6 ms·

Today I looked at the source code of Chrome where this is implemented, so I'd understand it better. It made me realize that there is indeed (of course) softwar

by kerng 6y ago

Today I looked at the source code of Chrome where this is implemented, so I'd understand it better. It made me realize that there is indeed (of course) software engineers (meaning: people) working on this who actually write that code. Does a high salary justify working on such features, or are modern day software engineers more like factory workers? I think not because most software engineers have a choice. Been thinking about this a lot afterwards.

chii 6y ago
> I think not because most software engineers have a choice. most people care more about their own interests than the interests of society in general. Only when collectively devising laws would society take the interest of society over individuals. Therefore, software engineers are fully justified at making software that is deemed unethical, but still take the stance that it is unethical. You might call it hypcracy but i say it's practicality. Legislation should be introduced to perform the function of ensuring ethical standards, not altruism on the part of the individual.
- girvo 6y ago
  They’re allowed to take that stance, sure, but I’m allowed to judge them for it. Ignoring your own morals just to make a buck isn’t a good thing. Otherwise we should all just become drug dealers.
izacus 6y ago
People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East for quarter of that pay. Even in America. And they're proud of it too. Time to look outside of tech bubble perhaps?
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East There is a problem with that statement and I will try to highlight it by creating a couple more of the same: - There are people working to build software to allow people to share child porn without getting caught (about Moxie and anyone working to bring e2e-encryption to the masses) - there were people working in factories that created hammers that were used to crush peoples skulls in Cambodia See where I am going?
  - izacus 6y ago
    Look, I understand your point. But this bizarre handwringing over "how dare you work on advertising?" just feels like there's something wrong with worlds perception of the poster. There are literally millions of people that deliberately do jobs that knowingly hurt people (and are built AROUND hurting and scamming people) and asking yourself "why would anyone try to improve on an ads tracking system while keeping ads around?" just really really comes out as horribly naive and oblivious. Not to mention that there are even millions more of jobs where significantly more harm is done as a side effect that doesn't come close to showing a damn ad based on their amazon purchase.
    - kerng 6y ago
      Targeted ads are powerful manipulation tools and its okay to call people out for working in these areas. You can do ads without profiling users and violating their privacy.
  - noir_lord 6y ago
    I see where you are going and OP's overly emotive language damaged the credibility of his point. However not all technology/engineering is neutral even compared to other technology. For example I made the decision years ago that there are some lines I won't cross for software development - one of them been gambling systems (even though they are quite lucrative) - (Note: I'm not saying they should be banned (that is not for me to say)) because morally I can't see an acceptable use that outweighs the bad. Same with weapons systems (though of course one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist).
  - SturgeonsLaw 6y ago
    Your examples refer to tools that are being misused, whereas weapons or tracking software is a negative for humanity precisely when they're working as intended
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      Here we disagree. Weapons stopped Hitler. Weapons stopped USSR. Weapons stop US. Weapons stop todays Russia. Weapons are tools too. Mostly to scare away an attacker before they strike but sadly sometimes also to strike back. Double sadly they also come with the possibility to strike first. But in the choice of us being armed and Russia and China and the middle East being armed or everyone being armed except us I take the first option. Every time. Edit to add: modern weapons are actually about reducing the chance the skin is melting of children. It is fully possible to think that your country should have access to the best conventional weapons possibly while still voting for politicians that want us to stop weapons sales to madmen.
bhl 6y ago
There's two sides to every story. Reducing the amount of third-party tracking cookies on the web, and implementing a novel application of federated learning are definitely things some engineers would do, money aside, because they're technically challenging. Also link to that source code mentioned: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:components/federated_learning/ https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...
- int_19h 6y ago
  > Reducing the amount of third-party tracking cookies on the web Why would anyone care about that, as opposed to, you know, reducing the amount of tracking?
  - jefftk 6y ago
    FLoC does reduce tracking: instead of many third parties building a thorough picture of your activity server-side, your page-level activity stays in the browser. Which already needs to know that, so it can maintain your history and turn links purple. Only the aggregated "cohort" is available to sites. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
    - kerng 6y ago
      If this were to succeed, then not too far out any website a user visits on the Internet can basically reverse engineer to a high degree (and at least approximate) the sites a Chrome user was on. Additionally, combined with just IP address its probably a 99+% precise user identifier.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        > It uses SimHash, so any website a user visits on the Internet can reverse engineer the sites a Chrome user was on. How so? A user's cohort is shared by many other users, and for any individual site you have visited it is very likely there will be another user with an identical cohort who has not visited that site. This means you cannot tell exactly which sites any individual has visited. > combined with just IP address its probably a 99+% precise user identifier. IP address alone is already a massive fingerprinting leak, and needs to be addressed if browsers are to prevent cross-site tracking. Chrome is also working on this: https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness

by kerng 6y ago

chii 6y ago

> I think not because most software engineers have a choice. most people care more about their own interests than the interests of society in general. Only when collectively devising laws would society take the interest of society over individuals. Therefore, software engineers are fully justified at making software that is deemed unethical, but still take the stance that it is unethical. You might call it hypcracy but i say it's practicality. Legislation should be introduced to perform the function of ensuring ethical standards, not altruism on the part of the individual.

girvo 6y ago
They’re allowed to take that stance, sure, but I’m allowed to judge them for it. Ignoring your own morals just to make a buck isn’t a good thing. Otherwise we should all just become drug dealers.

izacus 6y ago

People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East for quarter of that pay. Even in America. And they're proud of it too. Time to look outside of tech bubble perhaps?

skinkestek 6y ago
> People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East There is a problem with that statement and I will try to highlight it by creating a couple more of the same: - There are people working to build software to allow people to share child porn without getting caught (about Moxie and anyone working to bring e2e-encryption to the masses) - there were people working in factories that created hammers that were used to crush peoples skulls in Cambodia See where I am going?
- izacus 6y ago
  Look, I understand your point. But this bizarre handwringing over "how dare you work on advertising?" just feels like there's something wrong with worlds perception of the poster. There are literally millions of people that deliberately do jobs that knowingly hurt people (and are built AROUND hurting and scamming people) and asking yourself "why would anyone try to improve on an ads tracking system while keeping ads around?" just really really comes out as horribly naive and oblivious. Not to mention that there are even millions more of jobs where significantly more harm is done as a side effect that doesn't come close to showing a damn ad based on their amazon purchase.
  - kerng 6y ago
    Targeted ads are powerful manipulation tools and its okay to call people out for working in these areas. You can do ads without profiling users and violating their privacy.
- noir_lord 6y ago
  I see where you are going and OP's overly emotive language damaged the credibility of his point. However not all technology/engineering is neutral even compared to other technology. For example I made the decision years ago that there are some lines I won't cross for software development - one of them been gambling systems (even though they are quite lucrative) - (Note: I'm not saying they should be banned (that is not for me to say)) because morally I can't see an acceptable use that outweighs the bad. Same with weapons systems (though of course one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist).
- SturgeonsLaw 6y ago
  Your examples refer to tools that are being misused, whereas weapons or tracking software is a negative for humanity precisely when they're working as intended
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Here we disagree. Weapons stopped Hitler. Weapons stopped USSR. Weapons stop US. Weapons stop todays Russia. Weapons are tools too. Mostly to scare away an attacker before they strike but sadly sometimes also to strike back. Double sadly they also come with the possibility to strike first. But in the choice of us being armed and Russia and China and the middle East being armed or everyone being armed except us I take the first option. Every time. Edit to add: modern weapons are actually about reducing the chance the skin is melting of children. It is fully possible to think that your country should have access to the best conventional weapons possibly while still voting for politicians that want us to stop weapons sales to madmen.

bhl 6y ago

There's two sides to every story. Reducing the amount of third-party tracking cookies on the web, and implementing a novel application of federated learning are definitely things some engineers would do, money aside, because they're technically challenging. Also link to that source code mentioned: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:components/federated_learning/ https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...

int_19h 6y ago
> Reducing the amount of third-party tracking cookies on the web Why would anyone care about that, as opposed to, you know, reducing the amount of tracking?
- jefftk 6y ago
  FLoC does reduce tracking: instead of many third parties building a thorough picture of your activity server-side, your page-level activity stays in the browser. Which already needs to know that, so it can maintain your history and turn links purple. Only the aggregated "cohort" is available to sites. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
  - kerng 6y ago
    If this were to succeed, then not too far out any website a user visits on the Internet can basically reverse engineer to a high degree (and at least approximate) the sites a Chrome user was on. Additionally, combined with just IP address its probably a 99+% precise user identifier.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > It uses SimHash, so any website a user visits on the Internet can reverse engineer the sites a Chrome user was on. How so? A user's cohort is shared by many other users, and for any individual site you have visited it is very likely there will be another user with an identical cohort who has not visited that site. This means you cannot tell exactly which sites any individual has visited. > combined with just IP address its probably a 99+% precise user identifier. IP address alone is already a massive fingerprinting leak, and needs to be addressed if browsers are to prevent cross-site tracking. Chrome is also working on this: https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness https://github.com/bslassey/ip-blindness