5 ms·

> Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume Toxic hiring mentality. Unless someone is very high up, it’s just a job t

> Just remember. Don't ever hire someone with recent Norton experience I their resume Toxic hiring mentality. Unless someone is very high up, it’s just a job to them and they’re just trying to feed their families.

voakbasda 5y ago
Yup, they were just following orders. Definitely not responsible for their own decisions and actions /s
- jrockway 5y ago
  "Just following orders" is a loaded expression. You're implying that they're committing genocide, when really all they're doing is helping some company make a product you don't think is particularly good. It's definitely not worth such harsh words.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    No, it absolutely does not imply committing genocide. It implies that following orders of a superior does not absolve you of guilt when committing any crime. Even if this was not currently criminal, this behavior appears inexcusable. The software engineers building this software lacked the ethical stamina to stand up and say "no" to their masters. They deserve an equal share of the condemnation and consequences for their participation.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      Everyone, even the janitor?
    - avalys 5y ago
      What if they worked at Norton but not specifically on this one feature you have an issue with?
      - tadzik_ 5y ago
        If I worked at Norton and this happened I'd be handing in my resignation on the same day because I wouldn't want to be associated with these practices and for anyone, including future employers, to assume that I was involved in them. Or rather, I would if this wasn't mostly FUD and blown out of proportion. According to other comments it's entirely opt-in.
        tombert 5y ago
        Talk is cheap on this. Pretty much every government on earth has committed at least one atrocity, and usually many. Would you condemn a public defender for working for the US government, because the US government murdered millions of Native Americans? I mean, that's a valid enough position to have, but I don't feel like you have really thought it through.
        dontbothr83 5y ago
        tadzik_ 5y ago
        Talk is cheap, but so is switching jobs. The broader you go on this the harder it is to avoid, I still pay my taxes even though my government does terrible things with the money, but I don't have much of a choice. I have refused job offers from companies that do things I don't like though because it's not really that much of a loss. And I don't know what kind of standards public defenders in the US have, but over here it's common than an abuse of power by the police force is followed by a wave of resignations.
        tombert 5y ago
        I think you're missing my point, I don't think I made it terribly well. My point is that if we take a job like a public defender, I think most people agree that the action of what they're doing is a good thing. Providing representation to people who cannot afford a lawyer is (I think) nearly universally regarded as "good". However, they are paid by the US government, who has done its share of very evil things. Does that mean I should condemn a public defender because the entity that signs their paychecks does evil stuff? Personally, I think the answer is "no". Any sufficiently large entity has its share of bullshit, and I personally do not think that every individual that has ever associated with that entity is guilty-by-association by working with them. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would be surprised if everyone you like passes your purity test then.
  - RansomStark 5y ago
    I've never understood this argument. It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway, they are simply alluding to an extreme example of ignoring or justifying negative actions, to show that each of us has agency and should be held to account for their actions. I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions. The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example). Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job. In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      From the first picture here[1] it says "Turn your PC's idle time into cash: show me how" That appears to be opt-in. It's quite plausibly something people interested in crypto might actively want, namely a company they already do business with offering to make all the decisions about coins and wallets and stuff for a small fee. If a YC startup offered this, or it was added to the Dropbox client as an opt-in "let Dropbox make you some cash", people would love it. If Windows 11 or Edge included it, people would hate it. As an opt-in thing it's not a bad idea; not quit-your-job bad and certainly not "just following orders" Nazi trolling bad. It's Norton and AntiVirus's reputation which taint it. "It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway" - it at least implies that something strongly and obviously bad is underway that anyone with integrity should avoid. And that's not obviously the case either. [1] https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announcements/introducing-norton-crypto https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...
  - dontbothr83 5y ago
    [dead]
- jabej 5y ago
  That was nothing but the result of the winning side wanting someone to pay for what the losers did to them. It never made sense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tombert 5y ago
  I understand where you're going with this, and while I don't really "disagree", I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from Nuremberg justifications of murder to "installing some stuff that makes your computer slow because someone asked you to". Should "just following orders" fully absolve you of guilt, even on a small scale? No, definitely not, but I feel like the language you used is loaded. Most engineers on HN aren't solely developing for non-profits and charities, we're writing software for for-profit entities, and most of the really big for-profit entities are pretty evil (e.g. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc). It's not unreasonable to condemn people for working for these companies, but I think it's important to put into perspective the scale and intent of most of the people working there.
  - w1nk 5y ago
    It doesn't just make your computer slow, which is bad enough, it's actively stealing your electricity and converting it into their money. How can that possibly be justified?
    - tombert 5y ago
      It’s not justified, I don’t claim it is. It should be condemned, I just feel like the term “just following orders” has a bit of a loaded Nuremberg connotation to it. I guess I’m accusing the parent comment of hyperbole more than being “wrong”.
wallacoloo 5y ago
the job market (especially if you’re an engineer considering Norton) is so flush right now, you could choose a hundred other positions with similar workload and benefits. when you choose to work for a shitty company under such circumstances, it shows that you don’t care in the least for the other people with whom you coinhabit the planet. that’s antisocial behavior, and human society relies upon a certain amount of soft punishment for antisocial behaviors. yes: you should be thanking hiring managers who turn down candidates who have no regrets about past work at toxic companies, because those hiring managers are preserving our society at the margins.
- chickenpotpie 5y ago
  The job market is still complicated and not that easy. I know quite a few people that ethically disagree with their job and have been trying to leave for over a year and the phone is just not ringing. So now they should just be banned from working anywhere else? What are the supposed to do? Quit and starve?
  - wallacoloo 5y ago
    > you should be thanking hiring managers who turn down candidates who have no regrets about past work at toxic companies "no regrets" is an important part of this. though it's not quite the precise word i'd like, since your friends could well not regret their choice to stay given the circumstances you outline. what i want is for our culture to fight against antisocial behavior: to encourage the everyday person to give sufficient weight to social impact when making decisions. "sufficient" is subjective, so as a starting point replace that with "non-zero" and i think we come out ahead: the toxicly selfish (or socially ignorant) are encouraged to behave at least mildly pro-socially, and the friends you mention who tried to leave evidentially gave non-zero weight to their social impacts -- even if they failed -- and would pass such a test. the world is gray and i don't want a purity test. but that's not a license to ignore our social responsibilities.

voakbasda 5y ago

Yup, they were just following orders. Definitely not responsible for their own decisions and actions /s

jrockway 5y ago
"Just following orders" is a loaded expression. You're implying that they're committing genocide, when really all they're doing is helping some company make a product you don't think is particularly good. It's definitely not worth such harsh words.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  No, it absolutely does not imply committing genocide. It implies that following orders of a superior does not absolve you of guilt when committing any crime. Even if this was not currently criminal, this behavior appears inexcusable. The software engineers building this software lacked the ethical stamina to stand up and say "no" to their masters. They deserve an equal share of the condemnation and consequences for their participation.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Everyone, even the janitor?
  - avalys 5y ago
    What if they worked at Norton but not specifically on this one feature you have an issue with?
    - tadzik_ 5y ago
      If I worked at Norton and this happened I'd be handing in my resignation on the same day because I wouldn't want to be associated with these practices and for anyone, including future employers, to assume that I was involved in them. Or rather, I would if this wasn't mostly FUD and blown out of proportion. According to other comments it's entirely opt-in.
      - tombert 5y ago
        Talk is cheap on this. Pretty much every government on earth has committed at least one atrocity, and usually many. Would you condemn a public defender for working for the US government, because the US government murdered millions of Native Americans? I mean, that's a valid enough position to have, but I don't feel like you have really thought it through.
        dontbothr83 5y ago
        tadzik_ 5y ago
        Talk is cheap, but so is switching jobs. The broader you go on this the harder it is to avoid, I still pay my taxes even though my government does terrible things with the money, but I don't have much of a choice. I have refused job offers from companies that do things I don't like though because it's not really that much of a loss. And I don't know what kind of standards public defenders in the US have, but over here it's common than an abuse of power by the police force is followed by a wave of resignations.
        tombert 5y ago
        I think you're missing my point, I don't think I made it terribly well. My point is that if we take a job like a public defender, I think most people agree that the action of what they're doing is a good thing. Providing representation to people who cannot afford a lawyer is (I think) nearly universally regarded as "good". However, they are paid by the US government, who has done its share of very evil things. Does that mean I should condemn a public defender because the entity that signs their paychecks does evil stuff? Personally, I think the answer is "no". Any sufficiently large entity has its share of bullshit, and I personally do not think that every individual that has ever associated with that entity is guilty-by-association by working with them. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would be surprised if everyone you like passes your purity test then.
- RansomStark 5y ago
  I've never understood this argument. It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway, they are simply alluding to an extreme example of ignoring or justifying negative actions, to show that each of us has agency and should be held to account for their actions. I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions. The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example). Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job. In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    From the first picture here[1] it says "Turn your PC's idle time into cash: show me how" That appears to be opt-in. It's quite plausibly something people interested in crypto might actively want, namely a company they already do business with offering to make all the decisions about coins and wallets and stuff for a small fee. If a YC startup offered this, or it was added to the Dropbox client as an opt-in "let Dropbox make you some cash", people would love it. If Windows 11 or Edge included it, people would hate it. As an opt-in thing it's not a bad idea; not quit-your-job bad and certainly not "just following orders" Nazi trolling bad. It's Norton and AntiVirus's reputation which taint it. "It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway" - it at least implies that something strongly and obviously bad is underway that anyone with integrity should avoid. And that's not obviously the case either. [1] https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announcements/introducing-norton-crypto https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...
- dontbothr83 5y ago
  [dead]
jabej 5y ago
That was nothing but the result of the winning side wanting someone to pay for what the losers did to them. It never made sense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tombert 5y ago
I understand where you're going with this, and while I don't really "disagree", I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from Nuremberg justifications of murder to "installing some stuff that makes your computer slow because someone asked you to". Should "just following orders" fully absolve you of guilt, even on a small scale? No, definitely not, but I feel like the language you used is loaded. Most engineers on HN aren't solely developing for non-profits and charities, we're writing software for for-profit entities, and most of the really big for-profit entities are pretty evil (e.g. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc). It's not unreasonable to condemn people for working for these companies, but I think it's important to put into perspective the scale and intent of most of the people working there.
- w1nk 5y ago
  It doesn't just make your computer slow, which is bad enough, it's actively stealing your electricity and converting it into their money. How can that possibly be justified?
  - tombert 5y ago
    It’s not justified, I don’t claim it is. It should be condemned, I just feel like the term “just following orders” has a bit of a loaded Nuremberg connotation to it. I guess I’m accusing the parent comment of hyperbole more than being “wrong”.

wallacoloo 5y ago

the job market (especially if you’re an engineer considering Norton) is so flush right now, you could choose a hundred other positions with similar workload and benefits. when you choose to work for a shitty company under such circumstances, it shows that you don’t care in the least for the other people with whom you coinhabit the planet. that’s antisocial behavior, and human society relies upon a certain amount of soft punishment for antisocial behaviors. yes: you should be thanking hiring managers who turn down candidates who have no regrets about past work at toxic companies, because those hiring managers are preserving our society at the margins.

chickenpotpie 5y ago
The job market is still complicated and not that easy. I know quite a few people that ethically disagree with their job and have been trying to leave for over a year and the phone is just not ringing. So now they should just be banned from working anywhere else? What are the supposed to do? Quit and starve?
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  > you should be thanking hiring managers who turn down candidates who have no regrets about past work at toxic companies "no regrets" is an important part of this. though it's not quite the precise word i'd like, since your friends could well not regret their choice to stay given the circumstances you outline. what i want is for our culture to fight against antisocial behavior: to encourage the everyday person to give sufficient weight to social impact when making decisions. "sufficient" is subjective, so as a starting point replace that with "non-zero" and i think we come out ahead: the toxicly selfish (or socially ignorant) are encouraged to behave at least mildly pro-socially, and the friends you mention who tried to leave evidentially gave non-zero weight to their social impacts -- even if they failed -- and would pass such a test. the world is gray and i don't want a purity test. but that's not a license to ignore our social responsibilities.