6 ms·

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not imple

by tagyro 4y ago

My comment is going to get downvoted (or worse, ignored), but here I go again: We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Everyday we read about organisations using dark patterns in their (software) products and then we come to HN to complain about it. How did these features get built? By whom? Yes, I realise not everyone has the privilege to say "NO", but at least some of us can and should push back.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I think a lot of us do push back on the product owners and designers when something seems obviously bad. But I don't think it's good advice to encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code.
- YeahNO 4y ago
  Articulating why a certain function is bad design or is actively harmful is not the same as gatekeeping. I have lost opportunities because I chose to follow my ethics over my bank account. I do not regret those decisions. Software developers should have a professional code of ethics. Other professions have them, why not computer scientists, computer engineers, and software developers? There is the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code, but I don't know any professionals outside academia that remain ACM members, IEEE membership might remain relevant for computer engineers, so I may well be wrong in that regard.
  - tagyro 4y ago
    When I studied (industrial) engineering, we had a creed and naïve me still believes in that. https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation/ https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation...
    - intelVISA 4y ago
      We're young as a profession, once ML automates away a lot of the low hanging fruit I'd imagine we'll go a similar path.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code. That's not the call to action. The call to action is to refuse to participate in unethical behavior.
grog454 4y ago
> software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JamesonNetworks 4y ago
  GPT-4 def wont care
- Errsher 4y ago
  Ah yes, the banality of evil. s/implementing a dark pattern/performing any immoral or unethical act/g
  - _yrnr 4y ago
    In capitalism, you're always free to starve. In Nazi Germany, you're always free to be executed or imprisoned for refusing orders.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  That has always been a massive copout.
  - grog454 4y ago
    What makes it a copout? I've had friends choose the resign option. I've been fortunate enough that my resignations didn't involve ultimatums.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Was it effective -> did whatever they were resigning in protest of, get removed?
nitwit005 4y ago
You seem to have started with the premise that getting management to behave ethically is hopeless, but that maybe engineers could refuse. Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look. Regulation and criminal liability tends to be the only way to eliminate shady business practices.
- tagyro 4y ago
  I was "management" in an infamous bank. When I realised that I had a choice, I resigned. Again, I do realise that I'm privileged and not everyone can afford to simply resign, but a lot of us can and we, the ones who can, have no excuse. We are the "new" crack dealers 2Pac - Changes You gotta operate the easy way - I made a G today but you made it in a sleazy way Sellin' crack to the kids - I gotta get paid Well hey, well, that's the way it is
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look. True, but that doesn't mean you should participate. I think there are two things here -- refusing to participate in bad behavior is about maintaining your own humanity and holding true to your own ethical code. That it may not correct the company's behavior is irrelevant to this. The point is to not let the company corrupt you. The other thing is how to correct the behavior of misbehaving companies. This is what you're addressing, and I think your conclusion is largely correct. These are not mutually exclusive. Both are very important.
p0pcult 4y ago
Cogs can't push back; experts can, and should.
malcolmgreaves 4y ago
unions
JohnFen 4y ago
> Yes, I realise not everyone has the privilege to say "NO", but at least some of us can and should push back. I agree wholeheartedly. I would (and have) quit jobs where I was required to do things I considered unethical. Having to do that can suck and be a financial blow, but I think being able to keep my soul is worth it.
imiric 4y ago
Never mind dark patterns. If engineers had that kind of moral fibre to choose doing the right thing over getting paid, social media as we know it today wouldn't exist, and adtech giants wouldn't rule the web. The reality is that most of us think we're making the world a better place, when truthfully we're just trying to make a decent living, while making the unscrupulous shot callers rich. And that's the percentage that does actually want to make an honest living. Others will happily apply their knowledge to deceive and exploit, and then go on to make successful companies of their own. The circle of tech.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. You don't, but, doctors and structural engineers do. I was saying for years that a licensing proffeshional body, like the one other proffesions have, would improve things in our industry. When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? They know you know that any engineer that agrees to do doggy shit is risking their licence, and it's not worth if for them. This industry would improve significantly if it had a proffeshional body with teeth, and for that you need licensing like doctors and other proffeshions have.
- imiric 4y ago
  > When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? Not necessarily that scenario, but this happens all the time. See the recent catastrophe in Turkey. But I do agree that a tech license to uphold ethics makes sense. The problem is that the negative effects of tech aren't as clear-cut as from a bridge falling down. We still don't know what the long-term effects of social media are. Advertising rules all media, yet it's one of the most manipulative and harmful industries to have ever existed. These are not going anywhere because they have made many people very rich, and now these people have enormous influence over legislators and governments. Speaking of legislators, they're hopelessly tech illiterate, and unprepared to regulate tech in any way. It took them decades to regulate industries that were literally killing people. How long do you think it will take for them to catch up to Big Tech?

by tagyro 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

I think a lot of us do push back on the product owners and designers when something seems obviously bad. But I don't think it's good advice to encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code.

YeahNO 4y ago
Articulating why a certain function is bad design or is actively harmful is not the same as gatekeeping. I have lost opportunities because I chose to follow my ethics over my bank account. I do not regret those decisions. Software developers should have a professional code of ethics. Other professions have them, why not computer scientists, computer engineers, and software developers? There is the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code, but I don't know any professionals outside academia that remain ACM members, IEEE membership might remain relevant for computer engineers, so I may well be wrong in that regard.
- tagyro 4y ago
  When I studied (industrial) engineering, we had a creed and naïve me still believes in that. https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation/ https://order-of-the-engineer.org/about-the-order/obligation...
  - intelVISA 4y ago
    We're young as a profession, once ML automates away a lot of the low hanging fruit I'd imagine we'll go a similar path.
JohnFen 4y ago
> encourage people to unilaterally declare themselves the gatekeeper just because they write the code. That's not the call to action. The call to action is to refuse to participate in unethical behavior.

grog454 4y ago

> software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. Realize that you're statment is a euphemism. What you really mean is we have the choice between implementing a dark pattern or finding another job and letting someone else implement it. Stated this way it's a lot easier to understand people's behavior.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JamesonNetworks 4y ago
GPT-4 def wont care
Errsher 4y ago
Ah yes, the banality of evil. s/implementing a dark pattern/performing any immoral or unethical act/g
- _yrnr 4y ago
  In capitalism, you're always free to starve. In Nazi Germany, you're always free to be executed or imprisoned for refusing orders.
mrguyorama 4y ago
That has always been a massive copout.
- grog454 4y ago
  What makes it a copout? I've had friends choose the resign option. I've been fortunate enough that my resignations didn't involve ultimatums.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Was it effective -> did whatever they were resigning in protest of, get removed?

nitwit005 4y ago

You seem to have started with the premise that getting management to behave ethically is hopeless, but that maybe engineers could refuse. Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look. Regulation and criminal liability tends to be the only way to eliminate shady business practices.

tagyro 4y ago
I was "management" in an infamous bank. When I realised that I had a choice, I resigned. Again, I do realise that I'm privileged and not everyone can afford to simply resign, but a lot of us can and we, the ones who can, have no excuse. We are the "new" crack dealers 2Pac - Changes You gotta operate the easy way - I made a G today but you made it in a sleazy way Sellin' crack to the kids - I gotta get paid Well hey, well, that's the way it is
JohnFen 4y ago
> Management can always find someone willing to behave un-ethically if they look. True, but that doesn't mean you should participate. I think there are two things here -- refusing to participate in bad behavior is about maintaining your own humanity and holding true to your own ethical code. That it may not correct the company's behavior is irrelevant to this. The point is to not let the company corrupt you. The other thing is how to correct the behavior of misbehaving companies. This is what you're addressing, and I think your conclusion is largely correct. These are not mutually exclusive. Both are very important.

p0pcult 4y ago

Cogs can't push back; experts can, and should.

malcolmgreaves 4y ago

unions

JohnFen 4y ago

> Yes, I realise not everyone has the privilege to say "NO", but at least some of us can and should push back. I agree wholeheartedly. I would (and have) quit jobs where I was required to do things I considered unethical. Having to do that can suck and be a financial blow, but I think being able to keep my soul is worth it.

imiric 4y ago

Never mind dark patterns. If engineers had that kind of moral fibre to choose doing the right thing over getting paid, social media as we know it today wouldn't exist, and adtech giants wouldn't rule the web. The reality is that most of us think we're making the world a better place, when truthfully we're just trying to make a decent living, while making the unscrupulous shot callers rich. And that's the percentage that does actually want to make an honest living. Others will happily apply their knowledge to deceive and exploit, and then go on to make successful companies of their own. The circle of tech.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> We, as software engineers (or working in the field), have the power to not implement these features when our employer asks us to do it. You don't, but, doctors and structural engineers do. I was saying for years that a licensing proffeshional body, like the one other proffesions have, would improve things in our industry. When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? They know you know that any engineer that agrees to do doggy shit is risking their licence, and it's not worth if for them. This industry would improve significantly if it had a proffeshional body with teeth, and for that you need licensing like doctors and other proffeshions have.

imiric 4y ago
> When was the last time a bridge fell down because someone boss bullied a structural engineer into suigning it off? Not necessarily that scenario, but this happens all the time. See the recent catastrophe in Turkey. But I do agree that a tech license to uphold ethics makes sense. The problem is that the negative effects of tech aren't as clear-cut as from a bridge falling down. We still don't know what the long-term effects of social media are. Advertising rules all media, yet it's one of the most manipulative and harmful industries to have ever existed. These are not going anywhere because they have made many people very rich, and now these people have enormous influence over legislators and governments. Speaking of legislators, they're hopelessly tech illiterate, and unprepared to regulate tech in any way. It took them decades to regulate industries that were literally killing people. How long do you think it will take for them to catch up to Big Tech?