3 ms·

but why can't you be arbitrary (within the confines of the law)? particularly a small company. you don't have to justify your actions - just don't work with p

but why can't you be arbitrary (within the confines of the law)? particularly a small company. you don't have to justify your actions - just don't work with people you don't want to. why does it have to be consistent or logical? just say "fuck em" and move on... what, in short, is so bad about being faithful to what you feel?

mojowo11 15y ago
You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post. I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on what we feel -- could be considered discrimination. And finally, we think having some consistency is pretty important. Sure, we could just do this case-by-case and that, frankly, would be pretty nice. But it's also not really fair to our users, I think, who should know that we work with some kind of framework in making decisions so that they don't have to worry about us getting pissed off and shutting down their account for (what they see as) insufficient reason.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  you misread my "fuck em" - i don't for a moment think you should be rude to them: simply don't co-operate. i'm not a legal expert either, but i am pretty sure that legislation related to discrimination is based on specific attributes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin for the us civil rights act). and being a spammer is very unlikely to be a reason for protection under such laws. consistency is important if you're doing this enough for it to be noticed. if it's one person in the history of your firm, you could have quietly stalled and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, you decide to support a spammer and profit from hits on your blog. from that viewpoint you don't come across as a great company, to me...
brelsnok 15y ago
Exactly. The writer is looking for a 'rule' that defines wrong and right. Maybe to look for a strict pattern is the nature of a software developer but it doesn't always apply. Especially not in ethics I think.

mojowo11 15y ago

You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post. I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on what we feel -- could be considered discrimination. And finally, we think having some consistency is pretty important. Sure, we could just do this case-by-case and that, frankly, would be pretty nice. But it's also not really fair to our users, I think, who should know that we work with some kind of framework in making decisions so that they don't have to worry about us getting pissed off and shutting down their account for (what they see as) insufficient reason.

andrewcooke 15y ago
you misread my "fuck em" - i don't for a moment think you should be rude to them: simply don't co-operate. i'm not a legal expert either, but i am pretty sure that legislation related to discrimination is based on specific attributes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin for the us civil rights act). and being a spammer is very unlikely to be a reason for protection under such laws. consistency is important if you're doing this enough for it to be noticed. if it's one person in the history of your firm, you could have quietly stalled and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, you decide to support a spammer and profit from hits on your blog. from that viewpoint you don't come across as a great company, to me...

brelsnok 15y ago

Exactly. The writer is looking for a 'rule' that defines wrong and right. Maybe to look for a strict pattern is the nature of a software developer but it doesn't always apply. Especially not in ethics I think.