5 ms·

For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are.

goodpoint 5y ago
> For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech ...until you look for signs of burnout and ageism.
dkdk8283 5y ago
Tech workers are very well paid yet complain the most and often have unchecked egos. Code will not fix the world. People fix the world.
treebot 5y ago
You can still use unions to fight unethical decisions though
nobody9999 5y ago
>For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are. A reasonable point. However, it seems to me that those unethical decisions can create poor working conditions. If I know that the work I'm doing is actively harming others, that, as someone with a conscience, directly affects my working conditions for the worse. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
- btheshoe 5y ago
  I do like the perspective that programmers with a conscience forced to do bad things to the world are adversely affected, but it seems off to me to call that poor working conditions, because it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. I don't see anyone feeling sorry for the investment bankers of the '80s for having to go through a debaucherous, morally corrupt lifestyle.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. Huh? How so? How does acknowledging that people of conscience may be distressed and appalled at the harm their company is doing (making their workplace an uncomfortable place) diminish recognition of that harm? I'm not suggesting that we should care only about such workers, I'm suggesting that should care about everyone. Why is that, in your view, inappropriate?
    - btheshoe 5y ago
      It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do I take your point, and it is a valid one. That said, there's a continuum here. Let's take Clearview AI[0] as an example. The end result of Clearview's activities are absolutely harmful, and I personally wouldn't work for them. At the same time, not every employee (tech staff or not) is as culpable for the harms caused by Clearview AI's products as others. What's more, each individual's situation informs their level of comfort/need WRT their employment. Is the dev responsible for front-end UI as culpable as the dev working on the actual facial recognition back end? How about the sales/marketing folks who approach governments and corporations to use their products? If you have the means/ability to move away from an employer who is causing harm, assuming you see the harm (as the old saw goes, "it's hard to make someone understand something that their paycheck depends on them not understanding.") at all. Clearview AI is an extreme example, selected specifically for that reason. but in many other cases, "harm" isn't as clear cut. Uber and GrubHub are great examples of that. Those companies, in some cases, do provide some value, but they do so by extracting (in my view) a level of profit both undeserved based on the service provided, and exploitative of those actually providing real value (rides, food service and deliveries). Is every Uber or GrubHub employee responsible for that? Should we blacklist them for shirking their "personal responsibility"? As I said, I take your point, and it is valid it a bunch of cases. But I think there's a continuum here that you're ignoring. Perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case my apologies. If you'd care to expand on your point, I think it would add to the discussion. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/4/22266055/clearview-facial-recognition-illegal-mass-surveillance-canada-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/4/22266055/clearview-facial-...

goodpoint 5y ago

> For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech ...until you look for signs of burnout and ageism.

dkdk8283 5y ago

Tech workers are very well paid yet complain the most and often have unchecked egos. Code will not fix the world. People fix the world.

treebot 5y ago

You can still use unions to fight unethical decisions though

nobody9999 5y ago

>For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are. A reasonable point. However, it seems to me that those unethical decisions can create poor working conditions. If I know that the work I'm doing is actively harming others, that, as someone with a conscience, directly affects my working conditions for the worse. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

btheshoe 5y ago
I do like the perspective that programmers with a conscience forced to do bad things to the world are adversely affected, but it seems off to me to call that poor working conditions, because it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. I don't see anyone feeling sorry for the investment bankers of the '80s for having to go through a debaucherous, morally corrupt lifestyle.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. Huh? How so? How does acknowledging that people of conscience may be distressed and appalled at the harm their company is doing (making their workplace an uncomfortable place) diminish recognition of that harm? I'm not suggesting that we should care only about such workers, I'm suggesting that should care about everyone. Why is that, in your view, inappropriate?
  - btheshoe 5y ago
    It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do I take your point, and it is a valid one. That said, there's a continuum here. Let's take Clearview AI[0] as an example. The end result of Clearview's activities are absolutely harmful, and I personally wouldn't work for them. At the same time, not every employee (tech staff or not) is as culpable for the harms caused by Clearview AI's products as others. What's more, each individual's situation informs their level of comfort/need WRT their employment. Is the dev responsible for front-end UI as culpable as the dev working on the actual facial recognition back end? How about the sales/marketing folks who approach governments and corporations to use their products? If you have the means/ability to move away from an employer who is causing harm, assuming you see the harm (as the old saw goes, "it's hard to make someone understand something that their paycheck depends on them not understanding.") at all. Clearview AI is an extreme example, selected specifically for that reason. but in many other cases, "harm" isn't as clear cut. Uber and GrubHub are great examples of that. Those companies, in some cases, do provide some value, but they do so by extracting (in my view) a level of profit both undeserved based on the service provided, and exploitative of those actually providing real value (rides, food service and deliveries). Is every Uber or GrubHub employee responsible for that? Should we blacklist them for shirking their "personal responsibility"? As I said, I take your point, and it is valid it a bunch of cases. But I think there's a continuum here that you're ignoring. Perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case my apologies. If you'd care to expand on your point, I think it would add to the discussion. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/4/22266055/clearview-facial-recognition-illegal-mass-surveillance-canada-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/4/22266055/clearview-facial-...