4 ms·

Its up to the engineers to factor in maintenance work as part of their estimates. Business people assume perfect software and react badly when confronted with t

Its up to the engineers to factor in maintenance work as part of their estimates. Business people assume perfect software and react badly when confronted with the messiness of software development. Also, Facebook being a real business is questionable.

YZF 2y ago
Meta's market cap is 1.2T, it has $60B cash, revenue 143B a quarter... Not a real business? I mean maybe the original team in FB should have made sure they didn't accumulate technical debt and FB having failed would be a better outcome for shareholders. Engineers need to give the business the options. Not unilaterally decide that they're not going to accumulate technical debt. That's my point. And trust me, business people don't assume perfect software (at least if they've been in business for any amount of time). [EDIT: What's maybe different about] business people is they a) look at things as a negotiation. b) want to get the max value for their investment c) likely have seen a lot of engineering projects from the outside. Engineering needs to work with the business not go and decide what's right for the business. This doesn't mean you don't have ethical responsibilities as a software engineer in many situations but there are also many situations where the business needs to call the right balance between engineering effort the things like quality or feature sets.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I don’t think biz is in any position to decide that. They can tell us when something needs to be delivered by, and we can decide which corners need to be cut to achieve that.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The IEEE code of ethics https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html Would seem to preclude working on a site, like Facebook > 1. to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; Given that sites like Facebook have been used to spread medical conspiracy theories (health of the public), the whole business model is privacy violations, and the site was used to enable the Rohingya massacre (safety/welfare of the public), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/amnesty-report-finds-facebook-amplified-hate-ahead-of-rohingya-massacre-in-myanmar https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/amnesty-report-finds-... But I mean an ethical engineer wouldn’t get in the way of a place like Facebook because they wouldn’t work there in the first place.
  - YZF 2y ago
    I'm not an expert in ethics but to me this stance goes too far. The Internet in general is also used to spread medical conspiracy theories. If I work on network switches is that also unethical? Compilers? The job of regulating this sort of stuff is the government and the courts. There are laws concerning privacy, and speech, and companies need to operate within those laws. I would say an ethical engineer should not break the law or help the company they're working for break the law. I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis. That said as an individual you ofcourse have a choice where you want to work. I can see someone not wanting to work for Meta. I'm sure there are many ways in which Meta also supports safety and health, e.g. some (a lot) of useful and good information is also available on the platform. We should look at the totality of the company's impact, not just one aspect of it. That said I agree that hate amplification and disinformation on the Internet is of concern. It should be up to governments to take action on that. I think with Meta and other Internet companies they have immunity in the US for being sued over content others publish on their platforms.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      One reason to have an ethics code is that the law can’t possibly cover everything. Law is read in a fairly hostile manner (in the sense that people are looking for technicalities and loopholes), and also has to concern itself with enforceability, jurisdictions, etc. Ethics are self-enforced mostly, and they are to be followed in good faith. An ethical engineer should not break the law, but nobody should break the law, that’s the bare minimum for existing in society. If you thought the internet was overwhelmingly harmful and had little-to-no redeeming value, yes, working on network switches would be unethical. > I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis. I don’t see any particular reason to think they just mean exposing personal information to the public, when they talk about protecting privacy. I’d tend to assume Meta, like every other entity, is something we ought to protect people’s privacy from. It is up to you to interpret the meaning personally. But nobody is going to punish you if you don’t obey the code, so why look for an out? Just don’t follow it.

YZF 2y ago

Meta's market cap is 1.2T, it has $60B cash, revenue 143B a quarter... Not a real business? I mean maybe the original team in FB should have made sure they didn't accumulate technical debt and FB having failed would be a better outcome for shareholders. Engineers need to give the business the options. Not unilaterally decide that they're not going to accumulate technical debt. That's my point. And trust me, business people don't assume perfect software (at least if they've been in business for any amount of time). [EDIT: What's maybe different about] business people is they a) look at things as a negotiation. b) want to get the max value for their investment c) likely have seen a lot of engineering projects from the outside. Engineering needs to work with the business not go and decide what's right for the business. This doesn't mean you don't have ethical responsibilities as a software engineer in many situations but there are also many situations where the business needs to call the right balance between engineering effort the things like quality or feature sets.

Aeolun 2y ago
I don’t think biz is in any position to decide that. They can tell us when something needs to be delivered by, and we can decide which corners need to be cut to achieve that.
bee_rider 2y ago
The IEEE code of ethics https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html Would seem to preclude working on a site, like Facebook > 1. to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; Given that sites like Facebook have been used to spread medical conspiracy theories (health of the public), the whole business model is privacy violations, and the site was used to enable the Rohingya massacre (safety/welfare of the public), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/amnesty-report-finds-facebook-amplified-hate-ahead-of-rohingya-massacre-in-myanmar https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/amnesty-report-finds-... But I mean an ethical engineer wouldn’t get in the way of a place like Facebook because they wouldn’t work there in the first place.
- YZF 2y ago
  I'm not an expert in ethics but to me this stance goes too far. The Internet in general is also used to spread medical conspiracy theories. If I work on network switches is that also unethical? Compilers? The job of regulating this sort of stuff is the government and the courts. There are laws concerning privacy, and speech, and companies need to operate within those laws. I would say an ethical engineer should not break the law or help the company they're working for break the law. I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis. That said as an individual you ofcourse have a choice where you want to work. I can see someone not wanting to work for Meta. I'm sure there are many ways in which Meta also supports safety and health, e.g. some (a lot) of useful and good information is also available on the platform. We should look at the totality of the company's impact, not just one aspect of it. That said I agree that hate amplification and disinformation on the Internet is of concern. It should be up to governments to take action on that. I think with Meta and other Internet companies they have immunity in the US for being sued over content others publish on their platforms.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    One reason to have an ethics code is that the law can’t possibly cover everything. Law is read in a fairly hostile manner (in the sense that people are looking for technicalities and loopholes), and also has to concern itself with enforceability, jurisdictions, etc. Ethics are self-enforced mostly, and they are to be followed in good faith. An ethical engineer should not break the law, but nobody should break the law, that’s the bare minimum for existing in society. If you thought the internet was overwhelmingly harmful and had little-to-no redeeming value, yes, working on network switches would be unethical. > I would interpret IEEE's statement as it affects a single engineer to e.g. ensure that they are following best practices in protecting user information, e.g. if an engineer is asked by Meta to take some shortcut that exposes people's information publicly that would grounds for refusing to do that on an ethical basis. I don’t see any particular reason to think they just mean exposing personal information to the public, when they talk about protecting privacy. I’d tend to assume Meta, like every other entity, is something we ought to protect people’s privacy from. It is up to you to interpret the meaning personally. But nobody is going to punish you if you don’t obey the code, so why look for an out? Just don’t follow it.