4 ms·

>somewhere, there is a software developer--with a human name--who built this automatic ban system They built it because someone in Product or AdTech dreamt it

>somewhere, there is a software developer--with a human name--who built this automatic ban system They built it because someone in Product or AdTech dreamt it up, sold it to some VP or directory, and got some project + product managers to run with it. That's like blaming irresponsible mining practices on the miners and not the people who are actually deciding to mine in the first place, or even where exactly to mine. Even in those cases, if you try to take some ethical high-road that doesn't maximize profits or serve some VP's ego, you'll likely find yourself relieved of your responsibilities in short order. Chain of command, but also investor pressure to do everything even remotely legal to maximize profits is more to blame. If devs push back, they get replaced with devs who don't. The money is too lucrative and there are too many qualified people to really have much power to "do the right thing" in most big corps. Sure, you can voice concerns and try to change things, but if the decision is between "do a thing users will hate but will make the company 2% more per year" vs "don't do this thing and hope people will like us more for it"...yeah, they're gonna find someone to get it done.

shon 4y ago
Chain of command is a weird argument. If you don’t believe in war, then don’t work for a defense contractor. Engineers are a super-powerful enabling force. In my most recent startup we had many hard days, but I would often say “hey, at least we aren’t designing tactical nukes, we’re helping people get jobs” Engineers can and should take responsibility for what they work on. Yes, evil power hungry CEO-types (I’m an eng turned CEO) will work hard and possibly succeed anyway, but that doesn’t mean engineers are absolved of responsibility.
- kbrkbr 4y ago
  Your proposal seems to me to put socio-economic problems on the back of individuals. Imagine what they would have to do. For every line of code they would have you predict all the socio-economic consequences. I rather think such problems should be solved politically. At the end of the day we need to pay our bills, take care of our kids, and have something on the side for retirement. If I don’t implement this system, someone else with less foresight or less alternatives will. I agree with you for clearly evil stuff. But the system we’re talking about seems in a grey zone.
  - gobdovan 4y ago
    > For every line of code they would have you predict all the socio-economic consequences This is like saying for every step you take, you would have to predict if it would kill you or not. This is not how humans generally function. You make simplifying assumptions, such as thinking, "If I go for a walk at night in the jungle, would that kill me or not?" and then take action based on the overall planned trip. The same logic applies to shon's argument: if you write code for a tactical nuke manufacturer, would that contribute to harm in the world? You can then decide whether to work at that company or not, rather than analyzing if the "int count = 0" you just wrote brings the company closer to its (likely) destructive goals.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

shon 4y ago

Chain of command is a weird argument. If you don’t believe in war, then don’t work for a defense contractor. Engineers are a super-powerful enabling force. In my most recent startup we had many hard days, but I would often say “hey, at least we aren’t designing tactical nukes, we’re helping people get jobs” Engineers can and should take responsibility for what they work on. Yes, evil power hungry CEO-types (I’m an eng turned CEO) will work hard and possibly succeed anyway, but that doesn’t mean engineers are absolved of responsibility.

kbrkbr 4y ago
Your proposal seems to me to put socio-economic problems on the back of individuals. Imagine what they would have to do. For every line of code they would have you predict all the socio-economic consequences. I rather think such problems should be solved politically. At the end of the day we need to pay our bills, take care of our kids, and have something on the side for retirement. If I don’t implement this system, someone else with less foresight or less alternatives will. I agree with you for clearly evil stuff. But the system we’re talking about seems in a grey zone.
- gobdovan 4y ago
  > For every line of code they would have you predict all the socio-economic consequences This is like saying for every step you take, you would have to predict if it would kill you or not. This is not how humans generally function. You make simplifying assumptions, such as thinking, "If I go for a walk at night in the jungle, would that kill me or not?" and then take action based on the overall planned trip. The same logic applies to shon's argument: if you write code for a tactical nuke manufacturer, would that contribute to harm in the world? You can then decide whether to work at that company or not, rather than analyzing if the "int count = 0" you just wrote brings the company closer to its (likely) destructive goals.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]