10 ms·

I understand the perils of a capitalist system but whyyy would you agree to build this

by Ancalagon 10mo ago

nospice 10mo ago
It makes its creator the money they can spend buying the products they see in TV ads.
cephi 10mo ago
If someone is going to get paid to build it anyway, I might as well be the one getting paid for it.
- Sharlin 10mo ago
  Yeah, there are reasons why "someone is going to do it anyway" is a classic example of an ethically unsound argument.
  - torstenvl 10mo ago
    It isn't ethically unsound. It's a commons/coordination problem. What is the optimal strategy in infinite-round prisoners dilemma with randomized opponents? The randomization effectively makes it an infinite series of one-round prisoners dilemma. So the best strategy is always to defect. The only way you can change this is very high social trust, and all of society condemning anyone who ever defects.
    - jsrozner 10mo ago
      If morality never factors into your own decisions, you don't get to be upset when it doesn't factor into other peoples'. In other words, society just sucks when everyone thinks this way, even if it true that resolving it is hard.
      - nativeit 10mo ago
        This is called a “replacement excuse”. It’s a hallmark of nihilists and utilitarians, but I tend to prefer the more prosaic group noun, “jerks”.
      - torstenvl 10mo ago
        This is an intellectually and morally deficient position to take. There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. We can all agree, as a society, "hey, no individual person will graze more than ten cows on the commons," and that's fine. And if we all agree and someone breaks their vow, then that is immoral. "Society just sucks when everyone thinks this way" indeed. But if nobody ever agreed to it, and you're out there grazing all you're cattle, and Ezekiel is out there grazing all his cattle, and Josiah is out there grazing all his cattle, there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too.
        ReluctantLaser 10mo ago
        > There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. Is there not? I don't feel this makes sense to me, as the conclusion seems to be "if everyone (or perhaps a large amount of people) do it, then it's not immoral". My immediate thought goes to moral systems that universalise an action, such that if everyone did it and it makes the world worse, then it's something that you should not do. That would be an example of a system that goes counter to what you say. Since morals are personal, you can still have that conclusion even if other people do not subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs that you have. Something can be immoral to you, and you will refuse to do it even if everyone else does. > But if nobody ever agreed to it [...] there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too. Why not? I don't quite understand your conclusion. Why could the conclusion not be "I feel what everyone else is doing is wrong, and I will not do it myself"? Is it because it puts you at a disadvantage, and you believe that is unfair? Perhaps this is the "reasonable" aspect?
    - godelski 10mo ago
      It is definitely ethically unsound and it is definitely a common example even related to Nazis. Similar to "just following orders". Which I'll remind everyone, will not save you in a court of law[0]... You are abdicating your own moral responsibility on the assumption of a deterministic reality. The literal textbook version of this ethical issue, one you'll find in literally any intro to ethics class is If I don't do this job then somebody else will. The only difference is that I will not get paid and if I get paid I will do good with that money where as if somebody else gets paid they might not. Sometimes a variant will be introduced with a direct acknowledgement of like donating 10% of your earnings to charity to "offset" your misgivings (ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ ᴱᶠᶠᵉᶜᵗᶦᵛᵉ ᴬˡᵗʳᵘᶦˢᵐ ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ). But either way, it is you abdicating your personal responsibility and making the assumption that the job will be done regardless. But think about the logic here. If people do not think like you then the employer must then start offering higher wages in order to entice others. As there is some function describing people's individual moral lines and their desire for money. Even if the employer must pay more you are then helping deter that behavior because you are making it harder to implement. Alternatively the other person that does the job might not be as good at the job as you, making the damage done less than had you done the job. It's not hard to see that often this will result in the job not even existing as truthfully these immoral jobs are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if you are making the assumption that the job will be done it would be more naive to assume the job is done to the same quality. (But kudos on you for the lack of ego and thinking you aren't better than other devs) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
      - bannana2033 10mo ago
        > will not save you in a court of law Not in the USA. LEO or ICE - or even some judges misuse and never are punished. Qualified immunity. Moral is different story. Too many people in HN work in Google or Apple. That by itself if immoral.
        godelski 10mo ago
        > even some Some is a keyword. Some doesn't change the law. You're right to push back in case I intended something different. But I'll state this clearly: those LEO, ICE agents, and judges are committing crimes. But the fact that not all criminals are punished or prosecuted does not change the laws either. What I'm concerned about is people becoming disenfranchised and apathetic. Dismissing the laws we have that does punish LEO, ICE agents, and judges for breaking the laws. To take a defeatist attitude. Especially in this more difficult time where that power is being abused more than ever. But a big reason it is being able to be abused is because a growing apathetic attitude by people. By people giving up. So I don't know about you and your positions. I don't know if you're apathetic or invested. All I know is a random comment from a random person. It isn't much to go on. But I hope you aren't and I hope you don't spread apathy, intentionally or not.
  - whacko_quacko 10mo ago
    Care to articulate them?
    - Sharlin 10mo ago
      The fact that it can be used to "justify" almost anything. It obviously doesn't work as a defense in the court, and neither does it work as a justification for doing legal but unethical things.
    - avsteele 10mo ago
      If you want a consequentialist answer: If, for ethical reasons, fewer people were willing to take these jobs, then either salaries would have to rise or the work would be done less effectively. If salaries rise, the business becomes more expensive and harder to scale. If effectiveness drops, the systems are less capable of extracting/using people’s data. Either way, refusing these jobs imposes real friction on the surveillance model. If you want a deontological answer: You have a responsibility not to participate in unethical behavior, even if someone else would.
- cryptonym 10mo ago
  Where do you draw the line? Ready to do anything for money as long as it seems legal-ish or your ass is covered by hierarchy?
  - abirch 10mo ago
    If something should not be done: make it illegal. Trying to have a gentlemen's agreement not to do something seems like a futile position.
    - cryptonym 10mo ago
      Having you own morale and ethics is far from futile. Each individual should be able to question the law and object taking part in something they don't agree, as long as it doesn't break the law. Killing someone is legal in certain countries for different reasons (I'm not talking about war). Not sure I would like to get involved in that business, for instance if I don't agree on how and why people are sentenced to death in my country. Some people are built with low ethics. Sure, if it's not made illegal, they'll always find someone to do it. Looks like in that case it might be illegal, as TV makers are sued.
- catoc 10mo ago
  This attitude is the reason “someone is going to get paid”. If you see a unattended laptop in a coffeeshop, do you steal it because “someone will steal it, so it might as well be me”?
  - nertirs3 10mo ago
    Why stop here? We can also blame the people, who implemented such features on the TVs, the people who worked at companies, who used data acquired by these devices for advertisement, the people who worked on the mentioned ads for such devices and the people who bought products from companies, that spend money on such marketing techniques. At this point you might as well blame the average guy for global warming...
    - acrump 10mo ago
      The average guy is exactly the person responsible for global warming. The evil of the world is just the meta accumulation of the average person following their mirco incentives.
  - aliceryhl 10mo ago
    Where I'm from, it probably would not be stolen by anyone.
vrosas 10mo ago
The perils of the capitalist system man. For what’s its worth, I left adtech many moons ago specifically because it is a horrifyingly depressing industry and very very not fun to talk about at parties.
- godelski 10mo ago
  I'm glad you got out, but given your vantage point what would you say to those who feel pressured to do these types of jobs? Would you say more "it isn't worth it" or "if you have to... but get out as fast as possible" or something else?
  - notyourwork 10mo ago
    Money pays the bills. It’s probably not deeply rooted.
    - godelski 10mo ago
      Forgive me, but I'd actually like to hear vrosas's response or someone else with a similar background. I appreciate you trying to answer my question and help try to make me informed, but I don't want to hear speculation, especially the rather obvious ones. That's not helping, it just adds more noise to the conversation and discourages a response by them. We all know money pays the bills, no one needs to hear that. But hey, if that's what they say, then you'll be proven right. So let's wait and find out. I really do want to understand their mentality. I hope you do too because how else do we break the cycle?
      - freedomben 10mo ago
        I've talked to a lot of engineers building DRM technology, and most of them are just a combination of swept up in the fun of the challenge, and also deeply bought into the idea of protecting intellectual property. I would say probably 90% don't see any philosophical issues with what they're building at all. If you can convince them of that, quite a few of them would probably try to get out, but it's quite an uphill battle. I forget who said the quote and the exact words, but something along the lines of it's very difficult to disabuse somebody of a belief when their livelihood depends on believing it. As someone who was in an industry that I later discovered was doing things I wasn't personally ethically okay with, I would advise them to do similar to me. Start looking for a new gig and just get out as soon as you can. Unfortunately as an individual there just isn't much you can do. There will always be someone willing to do the job that you aren't willing to do. Just get out and find something you can sleep at night doing

I understand the perils of a capitalist system but whyyy would you agree to build this

nospice 10mo ago

It makes its creator the money they can spend buying the products they see in TV ads.

cephi 10mo ago

If someone is going to get paid to build it anyway, I might as well be the one getting paid for it.

Sharlin 10mo ago
Yeah, there are reasons why "someone is going to do it anyway" is a classic example of an ethically unsound argument.
- torstenvl 10mo ago
  It isn't ethically unsound. It's a commons/coordination problem. What is the optimal strategy in infinite-round prisoners dilemma with randomized opponents? The randomization effectively makes it an infinite series of one-round prisoners dilemma. So the best strategy is always to defect. The only way you can change this is very high social trust, and all of society condemning anyone who ever defects.
  - jsrozner 10mo ago
    If morality never factors into your own decisions, you don't get to be upset when it doesn't factor into other peoples'. In other words, society just sucks when everyone thinks this way, even if it true that resolving it is hard.
    - nativeit 10mo ago
      This is called a “replacement excuse”. It’s a hallmark of nihilists and utilitarians, but I tend to prefer the more prosaic group noun, “jerks”.
    - torstenvl 10mo ago
      This is an intellectually and morally deficient position to take. There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. We can all agree, as a society, "hey, no individual person will graze more than ten cows on the commons," and that's fine. And if we all agree and someone breaks their vow, then that is immoral. "Society just sucks when everyone thinks this way" indeed. But if nobody ever agreed to it, and you're out there grazing all you're cattle, and Ezekiel is out there grazing all his cattle, and Josiah is out there grazing all his cattle, there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too.
      - ReluctantLaser 10mo ago
        > There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. Is there not? I don't feel this makes sense to me, as the conclusion seems to be "if everyone (or perhaps a large amount of people) do it, then it's not immoral". My immediate thought goes to moral systems that universalise an action, such that if everyone did it and it makes the world worse, then it's something that you should not do. That would be an example of a system that goes counter to what you say. Since morals are personal, you can still have that conclusion even if other people do not subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs that you have. Something can be immoral to you, and you will refuse to do it even if everyone else does. > But if nobody ever agreed to it [...] there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too. Why not? I don't quite understand your conclusion. Why could the conclusion not be "I feel what everyone else is doing is wrong, and I will not do it myself"? Is it because it puts you at a disadvantage, and you believe that is unfair? Perhaps this is the "reasonable" aspect?
  - godelski 10mo ago
    It is definitely ethically unsound and it is definitely a common example even related to Nazis. Similar to "just following orders". Which I'll remind everyone, will not save you in a court of law[0]... You are abdicating your own moral responsibility on the assumption of a deterministic reality. The literal textbook version of this ethical issue, one you'll find in literally any intro to ethics class is If I don't do this job then somebody else will. The only difference is that I will not get paid and if I get paid I will do good with that money where as if somebody else gets paid they might not. Sometimes a variant will be introduced with a direct acknowledgement of like donating 10% of your earnings to charity to "offset" your misgivings (ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ ᴱᶠᶠᵉᶜᵗᶦᵛᵉ ᴬˡᵗʳᵘᶦˢᵐ ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ). But either way, it is you abdicating your personal responsibility and making the assumption that the job will be done regardless. But think about the logic here. If people do not think like you then the employer must then start offering higher wages in order to entice others. As there is some function describing people's individual moral lines and their desire for money. Even if the employer must pay more you are then helping deter that behavior because you are making it harder to implement. Alternatively the other person that does the job might not be as good at the job as you, making the damage done less than had you done the job. It's not hard to see that often this will result in the job not even existing as truthfully these immoral jobs are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if you are making the assumption that the job will be done it would be more naive to assume the job is done to the same quality. (But kudos on you for the lack of ego and thinking you aren't better than other devs) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
    - bannana2033 10mo ago
      > will not save you in a court of law Not in the USA. LEO or ICE - or even some judges misuse and never are punished. Qualified immunity. Moral is different story. Too many people in HN work in Google or Apple. That by itself if immoral.
      - godelski 10mo ago
        > even some Some is a keyword. Some doesn't change the law. You're right to push back in case I intended something different. But I'll state this clearly: those LEO, ICE agents, and judges are committing crimes. But the fact that not all criminals are punished or prosecuted does not change the laws either. What I'm concerned about is people becoming disenfranchised and apathetic. Dismissing the laws we have that does punish LEO, ICE agents, and judges for breaking the laws. To take a defeatist attitude. Especially in this more difficult time where that power is being abused more than ever. But a big reason it is being able to be abused is because a growing apathetic attitude by people. By people giving up. So I don't know about you and your positions. I don't know if you're apathetic or invested. All I know is a random comment from a random person. It isn't much to go on. But I hope you aren't and I hope you don't spread apathy, intentionally or not.
- whacko_quacko 10mo ago
  Care to articulate them?
  - Sharlin 10mo ago
    The fact that it can be used to "justify" almost anything. It obviously doesn't work as a defense in the court, and neither does it work as a justification for doing legal but unethical things.
  - avsteele 10mo ago
    If you want a consequentialist answer: If, for ethical reasons, fewer people were willing to take these jobs, then either salaries would have to rise or the work would be done less effectively. If salaries rise, the business becomes more expensive and harder to scale. If effectiveness drops, the systems are less capable of extracting/using people’s data. Either way, refusing these jobs imposes real friction on the surveillance model. If you want a deontological answer: You have a responsibility not to participate in unethical behavior, even if someone else would.
cryptonym 10mo ago
Where do you draw the line? Ready to do anything for money as long as it seems legal-ish or your ass is covered by hierarchy?
- abirch 10mo ago
  If something should not be done: make it illegal. Trying to have a gentlemen's agreement not to do something seems like a futile position.
  - cryptonym 10mo ago
    Having you own morale and ethics is far from futile. Each individual should be able to question the law and object taking part in something they don't agree, as long as it doesn't break the law. Killing someone is legal in certain countries for different reasons (I'm not talking about war). Not sure I would like to get involved in that business, for instance if I don't agree on how and why people are sentenced to death in my country. Some people are built with low ethics. Sure, if it's not made illegal, they'll always find someone to do it. Looks like in that case it might be illegal, as TV makers are sued.
catoc 10mo ago
This attitude is the reason “someone is going to get paid”. If you see a unattended laptop in a coffeeshop, do you steal it because “someone will steal it, so it might as well be me”?
- nertirs3 10mo ago
  Why stop here? We can also blame the people, who implemented such features on the TVs, the people who worked at companies, who used data acquired by these devices for advertisement, the people who worked on the mentioned ads for such devices and the people who bought products from companies, that spend money on such marketing techniques. At this point you might as well blame the average guy for global warming...
  - acrump 10mo ago
    The average guy is exactly the person responsible for global warming. The evil of the world is just the meta accumulation of the average person following their mirco incentives.
- aliceryhl 10mo ago
  Where I'm from, it probably would not be stolen by anyone.

vrosas 10mo ago

The perils of the capitalist system man. For what’s its worth, I left adtech many moons ago specifically because it is a horrifyingly depressing industry and very very not fun to talk about at parties.

godelski 10mo ago
I'm glad you got out, but given your vantage point what would you say to those who feel pressured to do these types of jobs? Would you say more "it isn't worth it" or "if you have to... but get out as fast as possible" or something else?
- notyourwork 10mo ago
  Money pays the bills. It’s probably not deeply rooted.
  - godelski 10mo ago
    Forgive me, but I'd actually like to hear vrosas's response or someone else with a similar background. I appreciate you trying to answer my question and help try to make me informed, but I don't want to hear speculation, especially the rather obvious ones. That's not helping, it just adds more noise to the conversation and discourages a response by them. We all know money pays the bills, no one needs to hear that. But hey, if that's what they say, then you'll be proven right. So let's wait and find out. I really do want to understand their mentality. I hope you do too because how else do we break the cycle?
    - freedomben 10mo ago
      I've talked to a lot of engineers building DRM technology, and most of them are just a combination of swept up in the fun of the challenge, and also deeply bought into the idea of protecting intellectual property. I would say probably 90% don't see any philosophical issues with what they're building at all. If you can convince them of that, quite a few of them would probably try to get out, but it's quite an uphill battle. I forget who said the quote and the exact words, but something along the lines of it's very difficult to disabuse somebody of a belief when their livelihood depends on believing it. As someone who was in an industry that I later discovered was doing things I wasn't personally ethically okay with, I would advise them to do similar to me. Start looking for a new gig and just get out as soon as you can. Unfortunately as an individual there just isn't much you can do. There will always be someone willing to do the job that you aren't willing to do. Just get out and find something you can sleep at night doing