9 ms·

Comments like this makes me lose faith i humanity. If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Beca

Comments like this makes me lose faith i humanity. If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Because I would care about the company, my colleagues and most importantly for the >200m people who use Twitter for fun, educational, business and those who depend on it. But it's probably because I'm an old beard, who value being honest and ethical, to be the better person even if I'm in a room of degenerates.

tgv 4y ago
> ... Twitter ... honest and ethical That's, IMO, an absurd contradiction. If you value honesty and ethics, you don't work at twitter. It's detrimental to mental health and society, possibly more so than facebook, just for the money. And now Musk might try to use it for his own political and financial agenda. If that risk is serious, running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do.
- tourist2d 4y ago
  > It's detrimental to mental health and society Got a source for that? Sounds like you expanded that personal anecdote a bit too much.
- plq 4y ago
  > ... running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do. Is this what you said during your hypothetical interview with Twitter? If yes, be my guest. If not, you should abide by the promises you made to your employers. It's got nothing to do with "self-imposed honor code" or whatever terms people come up with to belittle people with integrity. You made a promise when you accepted that offer. You either stand by that or quit.
  - tgv 4y ago
    "Aye, sir!" It's not the navy. You're not under orders. They can fire you if they want. But if that's not enough for you: promises and loyalty works boths ways. Suppose you're a veteran at twitter. The company (you thought) joined is not what it is today. You're not bound to any original promises. Furthermore, you didn't make any promises. You signed a contract, which is only partly binding (check your jurisdiction for details; e.g., where I live, a non-compete clause is frequently overruled by a judge). You didn't promise to increase shareholder value on your mother's life. Finally, when the interests are substantial enough, ethics trump loyalty and honor. I don't think I have to substantiate that. Of course, this doesn't hold when you adhere to some kind of "corporatism", where the state and/or corporations decide what's good for you.
    - plq 4y ago
      I don't think we disagree. You don't like the company you work for? You Quit. You think it's not the company you joined some time ago? You Quit. I can go on and on like this. You didn't promise to increase shareholder value, but you did promise you would try in good faith. None of this justifies willfully harming your employer. Edit: One of the things that is an exception I believe is whistle blowing. You may expose stuff you deem unacceptable or harmful to the general public. But I guess that's about it. Of course this all depends on your jurisdiction.
      - jen20 4y ago
        > You didn't promise to increase shareholder value, but you did promise you would try in good faith. And by most measures, twitter employees did that successfully.
- Handytinge 4y ago
  > And now Musk might try to use it for his own political and financial agenda. If that risk is serious, running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do. I try not to flame here, but that viewpoint may actually be insane. It's a job. You're not changing the world. If you don't like the politics of the CEO, leave. You're not a freedom fighter. Real people in the world are actually fighting for their lives, their freedoms and the right to eat and live in dignity. Literally hundreds of millions. None of those people are based in Silicon Valley.
vore 4y ago
What is the point of this self-imposed honor when the person at the top is more than happy to play you as the fool? Musk certainly didn’t act with much honesty or ethics in this deal, do you think he’s done an abrupt about face to suddenly be upstanding? And knowing that, being willingly taken advantage of only enables this poor behavior. I can see your point if it was some kind of critical infrastructure like a hospital, but for Twitter I personally really couldn't care less.
- HatchedLake721 4y ago
  > What is the point of this self-imposed honor when the person at the top is more than happy to play you as the fool? You don’t swap honor like a pair of gloves depending on who you’re dealing with or what they think of you. You’re either honorable or not. If one stops being honorable because of minor changes in external circumstances, I don’t believe they were honorable to begin with. “I’m honest, fair, and worthy of respect only when it’s comfortable or suits me” is not honorable. When winds start blowing the other way, that’s when one’s true character is tested.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    Sincere question: do you believe that Twitter (the business) is honourable in respect of its employees? Is Elon Musk honourable?
  - lrvick 4y ago
    Is it honorable to die on your sword for a casino or a big pharma price gouging department? Or an adtech company? Twitter employees are rightfully questioning their career choices right now, and if their continued help will give Twitter a chance of making the world a better place under current leadership objectives.
    - Handytinge 4y ago
      Who is dying by their sword? If they thing they ever made the world a better place, they're delusional. This seems common in silicon valley though. If you're being paid to do a job, do it. If you no longer want to do it, quit. It's pretty simple.
x128 4y ago
You don't owe your dignity to your company.
andyjohnson0 4y ago
> If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Because I would care about the company, my colleagues and most importantly for the >200m people who use Twitter for fun, educational, business and those who depend on it. I'm an old beard too and this seems (sorry) borderline delusional to me. Even in normal circumstances that kind of devotion to an employer never pays off - financially or emotionally. Companies the size of Twitter do not "care" and the product certainly doesn't. Caring back just sets you up for an inevitable, brusing collision with reality. In twitter's present situation, and given the well-known personality traits of its new owner, I'd argue that exit planning is the only sane thing for an employee to be doing with their time right now.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Place the comment in context. The other post is advocating for actively destroying the company
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    I was commenting on @TheChaplain saying they'd do their "absolute best up to the minute I have to leave" and offering an opinion asymetric loyalty in tech businesses. Thats all I was commenting on. I think thats pretty clear.
  - nickitolas 4y ago
    The comment very explicitly said "passively" which is the opposite of "actively": > Passively destroying Twitter from within by not trying
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      Are lies of omission not still lies?
- freejazz 4y ago
  The only context that makes something reasonable is being reasonable.
throwawayacc2 4y ago
Comments like this make me wonder just how divergent peoples outlook on life are. I’m with the guy you responded too, making a billionaire lose money is way funnier and interesting. But even in a normal company, I never really understood this loyalty/ethics thing. To me, it makes sense to do the very, very bear minimum and “steal” as much time as possible. So you can use it for your self. A job is you selling time to someone else. It’s simply incomprehensible to me someone would willingly give extra of their time. Equally not attempted to claw back as much as their time as possible. I suppose there’s an element of game theory, there are points in time where it’s worth to go that extra mile to achieve something that will put you in a better position, but those are the exceptions not the rule. Not judging you, I’m glad people like you are out there. My life is better due to people like you and I am thankful for that. But, yeah, I guess I’m just fascinated at the differences in outlook.
- dustedcodes 4y ago
  When you ask you accountant to do your accounts so you don't get hugely screwed by the tax man then you expect/hope that they will do their best work in your interest. When you go to the dentist and need a broken tooth fixed you hope the dentist will take an extra 15 minutes if it means your fixed tooth will look as straight and nice as possible, even if they could have fixed the core issue in a much faster way and leave you with an aesthetically unpleasant looking tooth. When you send your children to school you hope that teachers would sacrifice time from their own lunch break if your kid has one more question just before the break so they don't fail the next exam. If you live in America you probably hope that the person who guards the gate to your child's school would wait an extra 20 minutes if the new guard is slightly late so no crazy gunman could just walk in unchallenged and gun down your child. When your parents end up frail and end up requiring social care you'd hope that the people looking after them would not just do the "bare minimum and steal as much time as possible for their own benefit" and rather take pride and care when looking after them. All those people also hope that if you work on a product that serves a public interest that you will do your utmost best to return the favour so everyone can live in a nice society.
  - rajamaka 4y ago
therouwboat 4y ago
You joined Tesla to build cars of the future and bring self driving to the masses and then they ask you to review some other companys codebase, so that the boss can fire bunch of people. Yay, I will do my absolute best.
- diceduckmonk 4y ago
  Do we know if those Tesla engineers were forced into it or it was an opt-in?
  - shagmin 4y ago
    Curious about this as well. I could understand being a little peeved as a shareholder if this is purely coming out of Tesla's pockets, but I realize a lot of people have bought into Tesla and think of Elon Musk's distractions as part of the bad that comes with the good.
lrvick 4y ago
One could argue that centralized surveillance capitalism companies are unethical to start with. In the hands of a billionaire seeking to make them more profitable at all costs, they can become dangerous weapons. The ethical thing for Twitter engineers to do is sit back and watch Twitter burn and potentially think about how to help someone like Jack build the open source decentralized alternative he has been musing about.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yrgulation 4y ago
> who value being honest and ethical, to be the better person even if I'm in a room of degenerates I am the first to poop on corporates and their power games but i agree with you on this. Honesty and ethics are not something you simply throw out the window just because.
gaze 4y ago
The site has been flooded with 4chan users saying the n-word, and there are no attempts to stop this. This is the new Twitter. This means it’s trashed. It’s like trying to save a piece of raw meat left out in the sun. Why put a single shred of effort into this?
jwie 4y ago
This is a laudable position. But consider that, depending on your level and immediate boss, you might not be in a position to survive the layoffs no matter how personally productive and impactful you are. There will be a lot of snap judgements made by Musks engineers on who is to be spared and there are two major terms. One is how engaged and interested your current boss is at staying, and the other is what Musk’s technical staff think. Their judgements will be quick and driven by outcomes like broad attrition targets and what is absolutely necessary. If your on an unnecessary team, but are a rockstar, you might not survive if nobody communicates your value. And it is very likely that entire divisions are on the chopping block. Without an ally on a surviving division that says “I need this guy moved to my team yesterday” it’s unlikely to happen. Not saying you shouldn’t do the right thing, but try to understand the interests of and see what makes sense for you.
rtikulit 4y ago
I think being "honest and ethical" is at its heart a useful strategy for organizing the collective work of individuals. It's part of the ethos required for building high-trust groups. Individuals within a group want to understand the terms under which a group operates, and in particular, how to extract their share of value from the group and how to maintain or enhance their extractable share of value. The more the rules of a group are perceived to be fair, reciprocal and consistently applied, the more members can trust the group and each other. This relieves the participants of significant cognitive and emotional burden, allows longer-term collective action, and reduces transaction costs dramatically. But I can intellectually understand the value of opportunistic defection strategies that "cheat" the group, extracting both an unfair share of value (as well as some of the "embodied trust value" resulting in an incremental loss of trust across the group). I have a personal commitment to honest behavior and I actively avoid low-trust friends, groups and choices. Possibly because I find low-trust situations too stressful and too much work, as well as morally horrifying (whatever that means!) I'd like to believe that I'm fundamentally a "good person" but I acknowledge that it might just be that I'm unwilling to leave the local maximum high-trust situation I've self-selected for throughout my life, or I'm afraid of the risks of defector strategies (or I'm just cognitively and emotionally unsuited to them). Here's where it gets complicated, because organizations change, trust levels change, the signifiers of trustability change, organizations lie, sometimes organizations are specifically operated to trap and exploit high-honor people, and people have very different ideas about what constitutes "fairness" or "exploitation". I find it hard to criticize someone who chooses to use low-trust tactics against a low-trust or deceptive group. It seems, looking around different cultures and organizations in the world that there is a huge variation in the principles under which groups function. Apparently "low-trust" is a viable option, although I'm supportive of the idea that high-trust brings a competitive advantage both for groups and individuals, and is worth building and sustaining. I'm horrified that we seem to have reached some kind of tipping point in the west where a critical mass of elites (who already extract enormous value!) have decided they can extract even more value through high-order defection than by building modern and durable foundations of trust.
mikkergp 4y ago
Im not 100% convinced that tanking Twitter is less honest and ethical than continuing to support it… depending on the scope of the context.
activitypea 4y ago
>degenerates wew lad
seydor 4y ago
what kind of information is in twitter that does not exist elsewhere? i never remember searching for something and ending up to find the answer in twitter
freejazz 4y ago
Comments like yours seem devoid of humanity
tablespoon 4y ago
> Comments like this makes me lose faith i humanity. > If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Because I would care about the company, my colleagues and most importantly for the >200m people who use Twitter for fun, educational, business and those who depend on it. > But it's probably because I'm an old beard, who value being honest and ethical, to be the better person even if I'm in a room of degenerates. To be blunt: you're making yourself sound like a sucker who will let people exploit you. Spend as much energy doing right by your employer as they will spend doing right by you.
- feiri 4y ago
  > To be blunt: you're making yourself sound like a sucker who will let people exploit you. That's not really what it sounds like at all to me. A more apt analogy might be OP wanting to help all the passengers off the sinking ship before jumping off themselves. While you could just abandon the ship and assume everyone else knows how to get off without assistance, reality shows that many people still need that helping hand. I don't think OP is letting anyone exploit them. OP just wants to help people, which I think is quite admirable.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > A more apt analogy might be OP wanting to help all the passengers off the sinking ship before jumping off themselves. That's not an apt analogy. No one's going to die or even be harmed if Twitter crashes and burns tomorrow. Twitter is a frivolous discretionary product that exists only for its owners' profit, nothing more. > OP just wants to help people, which I think is quite admirable. Yes, but it's also not a good thing to be tricked into thinking you're helping people, when you're really being exploited. If you're going to keep working on a sinking ship, you better have a pretty good reason to think you're actually helping people that doesn't amount to a regurgitation of a corporate mission statement or a foolish one-sided loyalty to an unloyal organization.
    - hnfong 4y ago
      > Yes, but it's also not a good thing to be tricked into thinking you're helping people, when you're really being exploited. Why can't it be both? For you, you probably think that "avoiding being exploited by your employer" is more important than helping people (eg. your users). Which is probably fine if people just left it at that. In a sense it becomes an ethical problem with the general sentiment that hurting Elon Musk as much as possible is more important than not harming your users, to the extent that some people call out on people who don't subscribe to those views. Personally, IMHO, if one doesn't like a company they can quit. I don't see how people can claim moral high ground by advocating staying onboard for the purpose of sabotaging the company.
dkersten 4y ago
> Because I would care about the company The company doesn’t care about you. I don’t understand this loyalty to companies and billionaires.

tgv 4y ago

> ... Twitter ... honest and ethical That's, IMO, an absurd contradiction. If you value honesty and ethics, you don't work at twitter. It's detrimental to mental health and society, possibly more so than facebook, just for the money. And now Musk might try to use it for his own political and financial agenda. If that risk is serious, running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do.

tourist2d 4y ago
> It's detrimental to mental health and society Got a source for that? Sounds like you expanded that personal anecdote a bit too much.
plq 4y ago
> ... running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do. Is this what you said during your hypothetical interview with Twitter? If yes, be my guest. If not, you should abide by the promises you made to your employers. It's got nothing to do with "self-imposed honor code" or whatever terms people come up with to belittle people with integrity. You made a promise when you accepted that offer. You either stand by that or quit.
- tgv 4y ago
  "Aye, sir!" It's not the navy. You're not under orders. They can fire you if they want. But if that's not enough for you: promises and loyalty works boths ways. Suppose you're a veteran at twitter. The company (you thought) joined is not what it is today. You're not bound to any original promises. Furthermore, you didn't make any promises. You signed a contract, which is only partly binding (check your jurisdiction for details; e.g., where I live, a non-compete clause is frequently overruled by a judge). You didn't promise to increase shareholder value on your mother's life. Finally, when the interests are substantial enough, ethics trump loyalty and honor. I don't think I have to substantiate that. Of course, this doesn't hold when you adhere to some kind of "corporatism", where the state and/or corporations decide what's good for you.
  - plq 4y ago
    I don't think we disagree. You don't like the company you work for? You Quit. You think it's not the company you joined some time ago? You Quit. I can go on and on like this. You didn't promise to increase shareholder value, but you did promise you would try in good faith. None of this justifies willfully harming your employer. Edit: One of the things that is an exception I believe is whistle blowing. You may expose stuff you deem unacceptable or harmful to the general public. But I guess that's about it. Of course this all depends on your jurisdiction.
    - jen20 4y ago
      > You didn't promise to increase shareholder value, but you did promise you would try in good faith. And by most measures, twitter employees did that successfully.
Handytinge 4y ago
> And now Musk might try to use it for his own political and financial agenda. If that risk is serious, running twitter into the ground might be the most ethical thing an employee could do. I try not to flame here, but that viewpoint may actually be insane. It's a job. You're not changing the world. If you don't like the politics of the CEO, leave. You're not a freedom fighter. Real people in the world are actually fighting for their lives, their freedoms and the right to eat and live in dignity. Literally hundreds of millions. None of those people are based in Silicon Valley.

vore 4y ago

What is the point of this self-imposed honor when the person at the top is more than happy to play you as the fool? Musk certainly didn’t act with much honesty or ethics in this deal, do you think he’s done an abrupt about face to suddenly be upstanding? And knowing that, being willingly taken advantage of only enables this poor behavior. I can see your point if it was some kind of critical infrastructure like a hospital, but for Twitter I personally really couldn't care less.

HatchedLake721 4y ago
> What is the point of this self-imposed honor when the person at the top is more than happy to play you as the fool? You don’t swap honor like a pair of gloves depending on who you’re dealing with or what they think of you. You’re either honorable or not. If one stops being honorable because of minor changes in external circumstances, I don’t believe they were honorable to begin with. “I’m honest, fair, and worthy of respect only when it’s comfortable or suits me” is not honorable. When winds start blowing the other way, that’s when one’s true character is tested.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  Sincere question: do you believe that Twitter (the business) is honourable in respect of its employees? Is Elon Musk honourable?
- lrvick 4y ago
  Is it honorable to die on your sword for a casino or a big pharma price gouging department? Or an adtech company? Twitter employees are rightfully questioning their career choices right now, and if their continued help will give Twitter a chance of making the world a better place under current leadership objectives.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    Who is dying by their sword? If they thing they ever made the world a better place, they're delusional. This seems common in silicon valley though. If you're being paid to do a job, do it. If you no longer want to do it, quit. It's pretty simple.

x128 4y ago

You don't owe your dignity to your company.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

> If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Because I would care about the company, my colleagues and most importantly for the >200m people who use Twitter for fun, educational, business and those who depend on it. I'm an old beard too and this seems (sorry) borderline delusional to me. Even in normal circumstances that kind of devotion to an employer never pays off - financially or emotionally. Companies the size of Twitter do not "care" and the product certainly doesn't. Caring back just sets you up for an inevitable, brusing collision with reality. In twitter's present situation, and given the well-known personality traits of its new owner, I'd argue that exit planning is the only sane thing for an employee to be doing with their time right now.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
Place the comment in context. The other post is advocating for actively destroying the company
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  I was commenting on @TheChaplain saying they'd do their "absolute best up to the minute I have to leave" and offering an opinion asymetric loyalty in tech businesses. Thats all I was commenting on. I think thats pretty clear.
- nickitolas 4y ago
  The comment very explicitly said "passively" which is the opposite of "actively": > Passively destroying Twitter from within by not trying
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Are lies of omission not still lies?
freejazz 4y ago
The only context that makes something reasonable is being reasonable.

throwawayacc2 4y ago

Comments like this make me wonder just how divergent peoples outlook on life are. I’m with the guy you responded too, making a billionaire lose money is way funnier and interesting. But even in a normal company, I never really understood this loyalty/ethics thing. To me, it makes sense to do the very, very bear minimum and “steal” as much time as possible. So you can use it for your self. A job is you selling time to someone else. It’s simply incomprehensible to me someone would willingly give extra of their time. Equally not attempted to claw back as much as their time as possible. I suppose there’s an element of game theory, there are points in time where it’s worth to go that extra mile to achieve something that will put you in a better position, but those are the exceptions not the rule. Not judging you, I’m glad people like you are out there. My life is better due to people like you and I am thankful for that. But, yeah, I guess I’m just fascinated at the differences in outlook.

dustedcodes 4y ago
When you ask you accountant to do your accounts so you don't get hugely screwed by the tax man then you expect/hope that they will do their best work in your interest. When you go to the dentist and need a broken tooth fixed you hope the dentist will take an extra 15 minutes if it means your fixed tooth will look as straight and nice as possible, even if they could have fixed the core issue in a much faster way and leave you with an aesthetically unpleasant looking tooth. When you send your children to school you hope that teachers would sacrifice time from their own lunch break if your kid has one more question just before the break so they don't fail the next exam. If you live in America you probably hope that the person who guards the gate to your child's school would wait an extra 20 minutes if the new guard is slightly late so no crazy gunman could just walk in unchallenged and gun down your child. When your parents end up frail and end up requiring social care you'd hope that the people looking after them would not just do the "bare minimum and steal as much time as possible for their own benefit" and rather take pride and care when looking after them. All those people also hope that if you work on a product that serves a public interest that you will do your utmost best to return the favour so everyone can live in a nice society.
- rajamaka 4y ago

therouwboat 4y ago

You joined Tesla to build cars of the future and bring self driving to the masses and then they ask you to review some other companys codebase, so that the boss can fire bunch of people. Yay, I will do my absolute best.

diceduckmonk 4y ago
Do we know if those Tesla engineers were forced into it or it was an opt-in?
- shagmin 4y ago
  Curious about this as well. I could understand being a little peeved as a shareholder if this is purely coming out of Tesla's pockets, but I realize a lot of people have bought into Tesla and think of Elon Musk's distractions as part of the bad that comes with the good.

lrvick 4y ago

One could argue that centralized surveillance capitalism companies are unethical to start with. In the hands of a billionaire seeking to make them more profitable at all costs, they can become dangerous weapons. The ethical thing for Twitter engineers to do is sit back and watch Twitter burn and potentially think about how to help someone like Jack build the open source decentralized alternative he has been musing about.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yrgulation 4y ago

> who value being honest and ethical, to be the better person even if I'm in a room of degenerates I am the first to poop on corporates and their power games but i agree with you on this. Honesty and ethics are not something you simply throw out the window just because.

gaze 4y ago

The site has been flooded with 4chan users saying the n-word, and there are no attempts to stop this. This is the new Twitter. This means it’s trashed. It’s like trying to save a piece of raw meat left out in the sun. Why put a single shred of effort into this?

jwie 4y ago

This is a laudable position. But consider that, depending on your level and immediate boss, you might not be in a position to survive the layoffs no matter how personally productive and impactful you are. There will be a lot of snap judgements made by Musks engineers on who is to be spared and there are two major terms. One is how engaged and interested your current boss is at staying, and the other is what Musk’s technical staff think. Their judgements will be quick and driven by outcomes like broad attrition targets and what is absolutely necessary. If your on an unnecessary team, but are a rockstar, you might not survive if nobody communicates your value. And it is very likely that entire divisions are on the chopping block. Without an ally on a surviving division that says “I need this guy moved to my team yesterday” it’s unlikely to happen. Not saying you shouldn’t do the right thing, but try to understand the interests of and see what makes sense for you.

rtikulit 4y ago

I think being "honest and ethical" is at its heart a useful strategy for organizing the collective work of individuals. It's part of the ethos required for building high-trust groups. Individuals within a group want to understand the terms under which a group operates, and in particular, how to extract their share of value from the group and how to maintain or enhance their extractable share of value. The more the rules of a group are perceived to be fair, reciprocal and consistently applied, the more members can trust the group and each other. This relieves the participants of significant cognitive and emotional burden, allows longer-term collective action, and reduces transaction costs dramatically. But I can intellectually understand the value of opportunistic defection strategies that "cheat" the group, extracting both an unfair share of value (as well as some of the "embodied trust value" resulting in an incremental loss of trust across the group). I have a personal commitment to honest behavior and I actively avoid low-trust friends, groups and choices. Possibly because I find low-trust situations too stressful and too much work, as well as morally horrifying (whatever that means!) I'd like to believe that I'm fundamentally a "good person" but I acknowledge that it might just be that I'm unwilling to leave the local maximum high-trust situation I've self-selected for throughout my life, or I'm afraid of the risks of defector strategies (or I'm just cognitively and emotionally unsuited to them). Here's where it gets complicated, because organizations change, trust levels change, the signifiers of trustability change, organizations lie, sometimes organizations are specifically operated to trap and exploit high-honor people, and people have very different ideas about what constitutes "fairness" or "exploitation". I find it hard to criticize someone who chooses to use low-trust tactics against a low-trust or deceptive group. It seems, looking around different cultures and organizations in the world that there is a huge variation in the principles under which groups function. Apparently "low-trust" is a viable option, although I'm supportive of the idea that high-trust brings a competitive advantage both for groups and individuals, and is worth building and sustaining. I'm horrified that we seem to have reached some kind of tipping point in the west where a critical mass of elites (who already extract enormous value!) have decided they can extract even more value through high-order defection than by building modern and durable foundations of trust.

mikkergp 4y ago

Im not 100% convinced that tanking Twitter is less honest and ethical than continuing to support it… depending on the scope of the context.

activitypea 4y ago

>degenerates wew lad

seydor 4y ago

what kind of information is in twitter that does not exist elsewhere? i never remember searching for something and ending up to find the answer in twitter

freejazz 4y ago

Comments like yours seem devoid of humanity

tablespoon 4y ago

> Comments like this makes me lose faith i humanity. > If I were a engineer at Twitter, I'd do my absolute best up to the minute I have to leave the premises. Because I would care about the company, my colleagues and most importantly for the >200m people who use Twitter for fun, educational, business and those who depend on it. > But it's probably because I'm an old beard, who value being honest and ethical, to be the better person even if I'm in a room of degenerates. To be blunt: you're making yourself sound like a sucker who will let people exploit you. Spend as much energy doing right by your employer as they will spend doing right by you.

feiri 4y ago
> To be blunt: you're making yourself sound like a sucker who will let people exploit you. That's not really what it sounds like at all to me. A more apt analogy might be OP wanting to help all the passengers off the sinking ship before jumping off themselves. While you could just abandon the ship and assume everyone else knows how to get off without assistance, reality shows that many people still need that helping hand. I don't think OP is letting anyone exploit them. OP just wants to help people, which I think is quite admirable.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > A more apt analogy might be OP wanting to help all the passengers off the sinking ship before jumping off themselves. That's not an apt analogy. No one's going to die or even be harmed if Twitter crashes and burns tomorrow. Twitter is a frivolous discretionary product that exists only for its owners' profit, nothing more. > OP just wants to help people, which I think is quite admirable. Yes, but it's also not a good thing to be tricked into thinking you're helping people, when you're really being exploited. If you're going to keep working on a sinking ship, you better have a pretty good reason to think you're actually helping people that doesn't amount to a regurgitation of a corporate mission statement or a foolish one-sided loyalty to an unloyal organization.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    > Yes, but it's also not a good thing to be tricked into thinking you're helping people, when you're really being exploited. Why can't it be both? For you, you probably think that "avoiding being exploited by your employer" is more important than helping people (eg. your users). Which is probably fine if people just left it at that. In a sense it becomes an ethical problem with the general sentiment that hurting Elon Musk as much as possible is more important than not harming your users, to the extent that some people call out on people who don't subscribe to those views. Personally, IMHO, if one doesn't like a company they can quit. I don't see how people can claim moral high ground by advocating staying onboard for the purpose of sabotaging the company.

dkersten 4y ago

> Because I would care about the company The company doesn’t care about you. I don’t understand this loyalty to companies and billionaires.